Lords Sitting of 30 July 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Pontrefract Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Sutton District Water Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [H.L.]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill (No. 185); Paisley Roads Order Confirmation Bill (No. 186); Inverclyde Bequest Order Confirmation Bill (No. 187); Perth Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill, (No. 188). Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a
286
(The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee.
Local Government Provisional Orders Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Bacup Corporation Bill; Cork City Railways and Works Bill; Derby Gas Bill; Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill; St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill; Tod-morden Corporation Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petition to be allowed to continue to give Church of England teaching in schools; of—
  Teachers in non-provided schools of Higham Ferrers.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petition against abolition of the voluntary school system; of—
  Inhabitants of Burythorpe.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 488. Gold Coast: Report for 1905.

  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Sixty-first Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  Returns of the capital, traffic, receipts, and working expenditure of the railway companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1905; with a general report thereon and summary tables for a series of years.

STATISTICS (COLONIES).
Statistical Tables relating to British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates. Part XXIX., 1904.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Fiftieth Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners, with appendix.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Seventy-fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with appendices, for the year ended March 31st, 1906.
Forty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue, for the year ended March 31st, 1906.
TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 3684. Muscat.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1905–1906.
Presented [by Command]; and ordered to lie on the Table.

NAVY (PAY).
List of exceptions to the King's Regulations as to pay, non-effective pay, and allowances, sanctioned by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, with the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, pursuant to the Order in Council, dated December 19th, 1881, during the year 1905–1906.
ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1892.
Forty-second Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the chief inspector; proceedings during the year 1905.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Metropolitan Water Board, and abstract of their accounts for the year ended March 31st, 1905.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT).
Orders, dated July 24th, 1906, made by the Secretary of State for the Home
288
Department in pursuance of Section 36 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 —
Revoking certain previous orders and granting a special exception for a period of one year as regards the hours of employment of women and young persons in certain classes of factories and workshops.
Revoking an Order of January 12th, 1884, and granting a special exception as regards the period of employment of women and young persons in factories in the county of London in which letterpress bookbinding is carried on.

LONDON CORPORATION.
Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London, for the year 1905.
CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Return of the amount payable on January 5th, 1906, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Return for the year ended March 31st, 1906, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted under Rule 2 of the regulations drawn up under section 6 of the Act to hold civil employment of profit under public departments.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act); and ordered to lie on the Table.

RATEABLE HEREDITAMENTS.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of May 4th last), and to be printed. (No. 183.)
FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons and Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 184.)

THE SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
LORD BRASSEYrose to call attention to the recommendations of the Admiralty Committee on Naval Reserves, and to the shipbuilding programme of the present year. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the questions which I have placed on the notice Paper relate to the

289
Reserves of the Navy. I will introduce them briefly in a few general observations. This is no time to disarm. It is a time when every head of expenditure should be narrowly scrutinised. We see everywhere signs of impatience under the burdens of preparations for war. In countries despotically governed it is an undercurrent. In countries democratically governed it finds expression at the elections. In view of recent changes in the position of other Powers, demands for retrenchment are justified, even for the British Navy. We have to take care that retrenchment is carried out in such.a manner as will leave our naval supremacy assured.
Can we reduce the Votes for shipbuilding? Can we reduce the Votes for the manning of the Navy? The answer to these questions must depend on comparisons. We have to consider how we stand as to ships, and how we stand as to manning. In ships ready for service, and more particularly in battleships and armoured cruisers, we hold a commanding position. Measuring progress in shipbuilding by the amounts voted we are equal to a two-Power standard with some margin. In the circumstances of the hour it is possible to postpone the laying down of a battleship. We possess incomparable resources for rapid and extensive building. There is some advantage in delay. The latest ships are the most up-to-date. It gives occasion for reflection when we see that none of the types laid down within the last ten— I may even say the last five—years are included in the programme of shipbuilding this year submitted to Parliament. It is not chimerical to hope that if we show ourselves in earnest in a policy of reduction our example may be followed. If other Powers continue to push forward construction we shall be bound to meet them. We shall do so with reluctance. In the enlargement of programmes of shipbuilding we have not been the aggressors. In the last two years we have cut down Navy Estimates by £5,000,000 and the Estimates for new works by £4,000,000. I will not pursue the point. Your Lordships are awaiting a statement from Lord Tweedmouth.
I turn from shipbuilding to manning. In manning, as in shipbuilding, we measure
290
our requirements largely by comparisons. In the Estimates of the present session Parliament is asked to vote 129,000 men for the active ratings of the Navy, as against 52,000 for France and 40,000 for Germany. In fixing the numbers required for the manning of the Navy, we have to look, not only to comparisons but also to the list of our effective ships. If we take all the ships now on the list, and add all the ships we are likely to build in the next ten years, and if, further, we assume that, while all skilled ratings would be drawn from j the permanent men, complements may be partly filled up from well-trained Reserves, it is evident that the permanent force is excessive in proportion to the number of effective up-to-date ships. We have relied too much on permanent men for manning the Navy in an emergency. In Reserves we are below both France and Germany.
Impressed with the necessity for dealing with the Reserves upon a comprehensive plan, the Admiralty in 1902 appointed a Committee, with Sir Edward Grey as chairman. It is to their recommendations that my questions refer. The Committee recommended that the Reserves of all classes should be reinforced —the stokers, the skilled ratings of electricians and signalmen, and the Reserves in the Colonies. They recommended that a force should be raised as a reserve to the marines. When Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, Sir John Fisher delivered a lecture showing how the Army might be utilised as a reserve for the manning of the Navy, and I should like to hear that something has been done on the lines advocated by Sir John Fisher.
Passing to the officers of the Reserve, various regulations have recently been approved, having for their object to secure a higher standard of efficiency. The officer of the mercantile marine has none of the advantages rightly afforded to cadets at Osborne and Dartmouth. The Admiralty should take up this important question. Every Reserve cadet should receive such an education as will enable him when called upon to do his duty as a naval officer. The premiums to shipowners for

291
providing instructors for apprentices would be inconsiderable.
I have one more suggestion. The Reserves are growing beyond the administrative power of one central office. The admiral superintendent of the Reserves should be represented at the chief commercial ports by an officer of standing in the service, who, with the aid of a small staff, should keep in touch with shipowners, as to appointments to commissions and as to recruiting for Reserves of every class. My main purpose is to insist in general terms on the possibility of combining economy in the expenditure on manning with wider powers of expansion. I do not look for a reply from my noble friend on details, but I should be glad to have an assurance of his general concurrence. In conclusion, I may say that in creating Reserves for the Navy we achieve a double purpose; we are training up officers and men of the best stamp and quality for the mercantile marine; and there is a general testimony that they are needed.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down appears to divide itself into two parts, the latter part dealing more with the Reserves than the other questions of interest to-day. Your Lordships perhaps will pardon me if I pass away from the question of the Reserves, and deal with what appears to me to be the most important question we can have to discuss in this session of Parliament. I refer to the Shipbuilding Vote and the shipbuilding programme of the Government of the day. Though I do not wish for a moment to suggest that the question of Naval Reserves is not one of great and vital importance, I do suggest that the Shipbuilding Vote overshadows and surpasses it in importance.
It is very desirable that in the first instance your Lordships should appreciate quite clearly exactly the position of to-day with respect to the shipbuilding programme. I therefore make no apology for detailing it to your Lordships, and I will do so in as few words as I can. In November last, and again in March last, when the Naval Estimates were
292
laid before the country, the minimum programme that was thought necessary in shipbuilding was as follows. We were to have laid down this year four battleships of the "Dreadnought" type, five seagoing torpedo boat destroyers, twelve coastal torpedo boat destroyers, and twelve submarines. In July, what do we find? We find that instead of four battleships we are to have but three; instead of five seagoing torpedo boat destroyers we are to have but two; and that instead of twelve submarines we are to have but eight. That makes a diminution in the shipbuilding programme as far as battleships are concerned of 25 per cent.; a diminution as far as-those valuable sea-going torpedo boat destroyers are concerned of no less than 60 per cent.; and a diminution as far a8 submarines are concerned of no less than 33 per cent.
The Secretary to the Admiralty has told us what the programme for the year 1907–8 is to be. In 1907–8, instead of four battleships of the "Dreadnought" type which were to have been laid down, we are to have but two. The conditions with respect to the programme of battleships in 1907–8 are, I think, a little peculiar. We are to lay down two battleships instead of four, but we are not to lay down even those two battleships until quite late in the year. And for what reason? In order that we may emphasise the good faith of the British people, in order that we may induce foreign countries to believe, what apparently the Government do not think they would otherwise believe, that the people of Great Britain are in earnest in a desire for a reduction of armaments. I had never realised before that the good faith of the people of Great Britain needed bolstering up by such a scheme as that. And then we are told that if the proposals laid before The Hague Conference prove abortive we are to lay down the third battleship. That seems to me to be an extraordinary procedure with regard to what is supposed to be an amicable consideration of possible arrangements for the diminution of armaments.
I venture to think the proceedings of His Majesty's Government with regard to

293
The Hague Conference are a little complicated, and, may I say, a little contradictory. I have explained to your Lordships what is proposed to be done with respect to the Navy in order to emphasise the good faith of Great Britain. But what about the Army? Your Lordships will, I am sure, remember perfectly clearly the statement made but a short time ago by the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman stated in another place that while the Government had been able to reduce considerably the cost of the Army, they had at the same time succeeded in increasing its striking efficiency by 50 per cent. Is that to be taken to The Hague Conference as well? Is that to be a method of emphasing the good faith of Great Britain and showing foreign countries a lead in the direction of armaments Is it not an insult to the common sense of the country to tell them things of that kind? What foreign countries look to, and what they care? about, is not what we are saving in cost; they look to what the striking power of this country is abroad. I think that a little less of these theatrical performances as far as the Conference at The Hague is concerned may lead to better results.
There is in one of the newspapers of the day a few words that seem to bear rather upon our idea of immediate reductions. I am alluding to a statement of what took place in January, 1792, when in the Speech from the Throne it was pointed out that the friendly assurances received from foreign Powers induced the King to think that some immediate reduction might safely be made in our naval and military establishments. Mr. Pitt sounded the note of security in language even more assured. He said—
" Unquestionably there never was a time in the history of the country when from the situation of Europe we might more reasonably expect fifteen years of peace than we may at the present moment."
Before the year was out England was thrown into a struggle lasting over twenty years, and terminating only on the field of Waterloo. I merely mention this, my Lords, to show that even the best advised of the greatest administrators may sometimes make a mistake as to the position of Europe and as to the possi-
294
bilities of safely cutting down the armaments for the protection of the country.
There is one other point I should like to press upon your Lordships with regard to the reductions that are now proposed. We are now dealing with battleships of an entirely new type. Every battleship of the "Dreadnonght" type is equivalent, at least, in armament to two of the best battleships afloat to-day. I do not think I am putting it too high, if high enough; and when you talk of striking oil a battleship from your shipbuilding programme to-day you are striking off a "Dreadnought," which is equivalent, as I have said, to two of the best battleships now afloat. I beg your Lordships and the country to bear in mind that what we have got to get ahead in is the last and best fighting battleship in the world. It is no use counting up the number of smaller and out-of-date battleships we have got. We must, if this country is to be secure, be the foremost country in the world, with the strongest battleships. Ten or twelve years hence the country that owns the most "Dreadnoughts," or improved "Dreadnoughts," will be the country that will dominate the sea.
A great deal has been said about the Sea Lords. I venture with great humility to say that I think a great deal too much has been said about the action of the Sea Lords. I think we have been landed in a very evil precedent, by which His Majesty's Government shelter themselves without a shred of explanation behind their skilled advisers. We are told that the Sea Lords have recommended these reductions. I will not go behind that statement made distinctly and solemnly by the Prime Minister. May I quote his words —
"the Sea Lords have had no pressure put upon them in this matter. On the contrary, taking the further survey of the situation as it now presents itself to them they have advised us that what we now propose is sufficient to maintain the strength and preserve all the power that is required for the British Navy. Not only so, but they recommended this to us, and they expressly asked that the House of Commons should be informed that it was their recommendation "—
and then the Prime Minister added—
"In order, I suppose that they might get the credit for it."

295
My Lords, I know the Sea Lords pretty well, but I do not think that statement at the end is a worthy statement for the Prime Minister of this country. I accept, of course, the statement that these reductions were made on the recommendation of the Sea Lords; but knowing the Sea Lords as I do, I decline to accept, what is implied by that statement, that the Sea Lords changed their minds on the old conditions that they had to consider. I believe nothing of the kind. I can quite believe that there may have been fresh reasons and altered conditions which might have induced them to change their minds, but I deny altogether, as at present advised, that they could have changed their minds unless there was some change in the conditions to which they had to give consideration.
As to any change in conditions as far as building carried on by foreign nations is concerned, we practically have no information. We have the sort of nebulous statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty that there is some reason to believe that there has not been that progress with foreign new programmes which the Admiralty had reason to anticipate. That phrase is practically the only explanation of any change that has taken place in the circumstances held to justify the reduction of twenty-five per cent, in the battleship building this year and of fifty per cent. next. It is impossible that these reductions can be justified upon that statement alone. There must be some further change in the conditions, some further change in the position of affairs as to which the Sea Lords were asked to give their consideration. I want to ask my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty three Questions. I ask him, first, did the Sea Lords, initiate or originate this programme of reductions of their own accord, and if so, when? Secondly, had they submitted to them at any time any more drastic programme of reductions, and with what result? And, thirdly, had they before them at any time any intimation of any change of policy on the part of the Government as to the two-Power standard, and if so, what was the standard upon which they were instructed to work? I may be told that these are unusual questions.
LORD BRASSEY: Hear, hear!
EARL CAWDOR: But the position is an unusual one; it is distinctly art-unusual position. Will the noble Lord, who interrupted me tell me of a previous case in which the Government gave no explanation in another place or in this. House of the reasons for a change in their programme and a grave reduction not only for one year, but for the following; year, and sheltered themselves, without a shadow of an explanation, behind their skilled advisers? The Government have chosen to take that course. The country under these conditions has a right to know exactly what has happened. We have a right to press this matter also because the position is unfair as far as the Sea Lords are concerned, and I think we may claim that the matter should be cleared up.
The last of my three Questions 1 put to the noble Lord in consequence of the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place on Friday last. That statement is so important, that perhaps, your Lordships will forgive me if I quote it word for word. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on Friday last, said—
" Our opinion is that the Naval Lords are right; and when you talk of a two-Power standard, after all you cannot keep quite out of your mind who the two-Powers are. When we have elaborate calculations made as to what, France and Germany are building, is it really a very likely contingency that France and Germany should be allied and should go to-war with us? I do not object to the two-Power standard as a rough guide, but this is a two-Power standard of almost a preposterous kind. "
My Lords, that is a very momentous statement. I think it will be very difficult to exaggerate its immense importance. It means that the two-Power standard is discarded by His Majesty's; Government. What is the two-Power standard? The two-Power standard, that has been understood until to-day is that the Navy, upon whom we depend for the security of the country, must always be maintained so as to be strong; enough to defeat any possible combination at sea by any two countries in the world. That is the battleship standard. I am not speaking of the cruiser standard. In cruisers, of course, we have to have a great deal higher percentage of force

297
than that for the protection of our commerce and our Colonies. I am speaking for the moment of the battleship standard. We have always had, and always held that we must have, not only exactly a Fleet equivalent to those of any two other Powers in Europe, but that we must have a margin over and above that, and I think we have usually calculated something like ten per cent.
We had attained to that position. We had always under the late Government given instructions that what the Admiralty had to work to was that policy, and we had to assure Parliament and the country that we had attained to it. We have attained to it to-day, and under it I venture to say that the country has been feeling safe; but the Prime Minister in one sentence has cast that all aside. Such a standard in his view is a standard of almost a preposterous kind. If that be the view of His Majesty's Government, it is hardly likely that the instructions given to the Sea Lords since His Majesty's Government come into office were to work upon those lines. They were not likely to have been told to work up to a standard described as one of an almost preposterous kind. If not, surely we have a right to ask, and surely the country has a right to know, upon what standard the Sea Lords have been told to work in securing to us a Navy efficient for the purposes stated to be necessary by the Government of the day. We have no information of any sort or kind.
It seems clear, and I think the country should realise it, from the statement of the Prime Minister, that if an improbable, I admit, but not an impossible combination of foreign Powers was directed against this country, I mean such a combination as was quoted by the Prime Minister himself, a combination of France and Germany—the country should understand and realise that in the event of such a combination taking place the Government of the day are content that we should be powerless to defend our shores. There is no half way in this matter. Either the Navy is to be maintained strong enough to make us absolutely safe against any two Powers —I care not which they are—who might combine against us, or it is not. If you drop below the two-Power standard,
298
what standard are you going to adopt? You must drop down and down. It is no use having half a fleet, and if you have not a fleet sufficient for the protection of the country, you may as well not have a fleet at all. I think we are entitled distinctly and absolutely to an answer from His Majesty's Government as to what standard it is to which they have instructed the Sea Lords to work.
I want to quote one more statement by the Prime Minister. He complained that it had been stated that he was weakening the Fleet. He said—
"How are we weakening the Fleet? It is the old idea that by piling one strength upon another you get a greater result."
My Lords, I should have thought so. There is another old idea that two and two make four, and an old idea that, as far as I know, is generally accepted throughout the world; but I agree that it is quite a new idea, and a new idea started apparently by the Prime Minister himself, that the addition to or withdrawal from our building programme of one or two "Dreadnoughts" does not effect the strengthening or the weakening of the Fleet. I do not know to whom the Prime Minister was really addressing those words. It could hardly have been the House of Commons, and he could hardly have been insulting enough to have addressed them to the electors of this great country.
We are told that peace is best secured by diminishing armaments. Was there, ever such a fallacy? It sounds well, but it is not true. No one, my Lords, doubts that my noble friend who sits beside me, Lord Lansdowne, has done as much as any man in this country in the direction of securing European peace. Does any one suggest for a moment that he would have been as successful as he has been in that line if we had not been strong at sea? These phrases about peace being secured by diminished armaments may sound well in some people's ears. The facts I believe to be that a strong British Fleet is the best safeguard you can have for European peace. I venture to say that "A strong man armed" should be the motto and the position of this country. Preparedness for war is, in our island home, the only real security for peace. Let it ever be remembered that our Navy

299
is not in any sense an aggressive force; it is our defensive force. If you tamper with that, my Lords, you tamper with the security of the Empire.
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMODTH): My Lords, we have heard two very different speeches to-day on this subject. My noble friend who opened this debate, than whom there is no man more acquainted with the Navy, no man who has given greater attention to it is Letter acquainted with its wants and with the wants of the country, has approved of the policy of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl opposite, on the other hand, has denounced our policy and has said that it is without precedent, that it is dangerous—
EARL CAWDOR: I did not say the policy was without precedent.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Earl has denounced our policy and has said that it is dangerous, and that it is undoubtedly weakening us in the face of rival nations in Europe. I am qu te prepared to meet that charge and to show that the proposals that are being made by His Majesty's Government are not such as in the existing condition of Europe, and in the existing building programmes of other nations, is dangerous to this country. I feel that I am entering into this contest to some extent with one hand tied behind my back, because I do not believe it to be either wise or prudent or good policy to go into minute details as to the comparative strength of our Navy and other navies, or to set the ships of various classes in our Navy against the ships of various classes in another. I do not think it is wise to brandish the strength of our Navy in the face of the rest of the world. It is not right to use the British Navy as a sort of shillelagh which you are to whirl around and say, "Here's a head, let's knock it."That is not the line that I propose to take. I believe that the Navy is a sharp and keen weapon, a weapon that is kept both sharp and keen, and which is ready for the purpose for which it is required, namely, the defence of our country, and not for aggression on any foreign country.
EARL CAWDOR: Hear, hear !
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Earl has, I think, adopted the course that he condemned in others by also bringing the Sea Lords very much into this discussion. For my part, I shall not do that. I consider that the Board of Admiralty as a whole, the Sea Lords and the civil members alike, are responsible for all that takes place; and for my own part, knowing the grave responsibility that lies upon me, I assure you that in considering these matters during the last few weeks I have given to them my very closest attention. I have had the advantage of the advice of many both within and without the Admiralty, and I am prepared, so far as is possible for one who has only been for seven months at the Admiralty, to take the responsibility on myself of saying that I believe the proposals of His Majesty's Government at this time do not lead to danger, but are perfectly consonant with the best interests of our country.
The noble Lord asked me three questions which he said were somewhat unusual. I think they were. But still I will answer them. He first asked, Did the Sea Lords initiate the new programme of their own accord? My Lords, the Sea Lords, along with their colleagues in the Admiralty, considered the whole situation as it was between March and July, and together unanimously came to the conclusion that they could recommend this particular reduction in the programme. The noble Earl next asked, Had they submitted to them any more drastic proposals? My Lords, they had no proposals of any sort or kind submitted to them. They were asked simply to review the situation and make their own proposals. The question of a change of standard never was brought before them at all. I have said that I do not think it wise to go into the details of the comparative strength either of Fleets or of ships belonging to different countries. I believe all that is necessary can be found in the Dilke Return, and I believe that every man from that Return can judge for himself what the relative strengths of the British Fleet and other fleets now are. But, my Lords, the Board as a whole accept this policy, and

301
think it right to adopt a policy of economy so long as the full sea supremacy of our country can be maintained.
The Board have been very severely criticised, and the Sea Lords most of all, for their decision in July to change the programme which was put forward in March at the time of the statement on the Estimates. Whether the Admiralty was right or wrong with regard to that is a question of the consideration of circumstances. There is certainly neither precedent nor good sense in the idea that because a particular programme has once been put forward there is, therefore, never to be any change from that particular programme; and I say that it is against all rules of economy to say that a great department is obliged to spend up to an estimate that has been made at an early date before all the circumstances of the case had been considered, instead of revising it if it thinks it necessary. That course, after all, has the precedent of previous Boards; it has been the course taken by three successive Boards in three successive years when the First Lords were Lord Selborne, Lord Cawdor, and myself. In the last year that Lord Selborne was First Lord of the Admiralty six armoured ships were included in the programme; one was dropped. In the programme of last year, for which the noble Earl opposite was responsible, five armoured ships were in that programme, and on consideration one was dropped. This year, again, "four armoured ships were in the programme, and after full consideration one was dropped.
I would remind you of this, and it is, I think, an important consideration, that year after year these armoured ships are getting more complex, more costly, and more and more of an experiment. If error there be, there was error with the late Boards as well as with the present Board, for the course they adopted was exactly the same. As a matter of fact, I contend that there was blame with none of the Boards for the course they took. I believe that they all took a wise course, and one that was justified by the change of circumstances. The business of the Admiralty is at the beginning of the year to provide for what seems to be the necessities of the year. I would wish to
302
insist that it is a wise thing to take your programme year by year and not attempt to go beyond the needs and the necessities of the particular year. It is impossible to forecast what the changes and delays in the programmes of foreign nations may be, and it must be year by year the duty of the Admiralty to consider those changes and those delays before they decide on what their own eventual programme is to be. That I believe to be sound.
Now, my Lords, the Admiralty do not desire to spend money unnecessarily, and when they came to consider the great changes and the great delays that had taken place in foreign building during this year they arrived at the conclusion that it was wise and right to reduce the programme as it stood when the noble Earl left office. It was proposed, as the noble Earl said, to build four armoured ships, five ocean-going destroyers, twelve coastal destroyers, and twelve submarines. The outlook then was that France was going to lay down several very large battleships; the United States were going to lay down two new great battleships, besides two that had before been carried. Russia was going to lay down one first class battleship and two armoured cruisers; and Germany was going to lay down two very large battleships and one armoured cruiser.
It was in view of this knowledge that the programme was originally formed. But from week to week and from month to month we got reports of delay in the commencement of this new construction, and of the dropping of these proposed ships. Neither in France nor in the United States have any new keels been laid down. Germany for the first time has failed to fulfil her programme, and the delay in those German essels has been more than four months; and only this very morning I have had information that the first of the two great battleships proposed to be laid down by Germany will not be laid down till the month of September next. The same thing has taken place in the United States. In France, instead of six new battleships to be completed two a year, they are not to be completed until the end of 1912, or at the rate of only one a year instead of two. In Russia there has been a reduction in the

303
proposed vote for new construction of £2,500,000. In consequence it was decided to drop one of our own big battleships and, further, there were dropped three ocean-going destroyers and four sub marines.
But I wish to make it perfectly clear that in lieu of those vessels a new vessel is to be laid down. It is true it is not to be laid down till early next year, but I will give the House a description of it. It is to be laid down at Pembroke Dockyard very early in the financial year 1907–8. It is an improved "Scout," and has been designed after the experience of the "Gem" and the" Scout" class. It includes the turbine machinery of the "Amethyst,'' and full advantage will be taken of the oil-fuel experiences of the last few years in vessels of all classes. The vessel will have a very much increased radius, and will be able to steam over 2,000 knots. She will be a very fast vessel and will have much heavier armaments and a greater radius of action than that of the "Scout," and being designed for the same speed will be much superior to third-class cruisers in this respect. She is to be fitted with a double bottom/and will be fully capable of service on distant foreign stations; so work that is now carried out by smaller types of cruisers will be done by this. That I believe to be a very important vessel.
There is good reason also for the postponement of the ocean-going destroyers and submarines. The complexity and difficulty of the oceangoing destroyers is very great, and the Admiralty desire to have greater experience of their action and work before they lay down so large a number as was proposed. With regard to the submarines also, a new type is now being developed, and it is not thought desirable to start twelve submarines this year. Eight are quite enough with our present knowledge, and we had much better wait until the new type is developed and we have the benefit of the knowledge thereby gained.
But, besides the facts that I have tried to bring before you with regard to the progress of building amongst foreign nations, there is also this consideration. We have proved in the most striking
304
manner this year the great and immediate efficiency of His Majesty's Navy. On three-different occasions we have carried out considerable manœuvres. First, there was the mobilisation in February of the scouts, destroyers, and torpedo boats, 110 in all; they carried out considerable manœuvres and operations in bad weather with the greatest success and with very small defects. There were also the manœuvres at Lagos, which, lasted from February 15th to March 1st, in which twenty-nine battleships and eighteen cruisers took part, and which again proved that the Fleet was ready for action at a moment's notice. Again, we had the grand manœuvres between June 12th and July 2nd, in which no less than 319 ships took part, and which, were remarkable for their success and for the rapidity of mobilisation which it was found possible to effect in the nucleus crews of the reserve ships. Those ships performed a record in mobilisation, for of all those vessels the longest in getting mobilised took only-three hours, and the shortest forty minutes. That, my Lords, gave proof of how ready the Fleet was to go to sea, how quickly it could be mobilised, and how speedily the reserves could be brought on board ship.
I now come to the question of the national advantage of endeavouring in some way to reduce the huge expenditure of this country. That expenditure-has increased by half during the past ten years, and, most of all, the defence service expenditure has increased to something like £61,000,000 a year, without taking into consideration the Works account or the cost of our Army in India. Surely it is a desirable thing, and an object that should be aimed at by all parties in this House and in the country, to reduce these great charges, that weigh so heavily on the people. The noble Earl was rather sarcastic about The Hague Conference.
EARL CAWDOR: Not about The Hague Conference, but only about the operations of His Majesty's Government with regard to that Conference.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think the noble Earl looked upon those who support The Hague Conference, and who think:

305
that something may be got from the meeting of nations at such a Conference, as in the nature of ideal dreamers.
EARL CAWDOR: Oh, no, I did not.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: At any rate, that is an opinion which is held, and t is one against which I protest. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord Goschen, in 1899, before the last Hague Conference, said—
" We have been compelled to increase our expenditure, as other nations have increased theirs, not pressing on more than they. As they have increased, so have we increased. I have now to state on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that similarly if the other great naval powers should be prepared to diminish their programme of shipbuilding, we should be prepared on our side to meet such a procedure by modifying ours."
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Hear, hear !
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Viscount continued—
"the difficulties of adjustment are no doubt immense, but our desire that the conference should succeed in lightening the tremendous burden which now weighs down all European nations is sincere. But if Europe comes to no agreement, and if the hopes entertained by the Czar should not be realised, the programme which I have submitted to the House must stand."
Those are words with which I desire entirely to associate myself. It is quite true that it is suggested that for the programme of 1907–8 in the first instance only two battleships should be laid down, and that the third should be laid down if the proceedings of the Hague Conference come to nothing. It seems to me that this country will go to that Conference with a good face and with a good record, for it can show that successive Governments have year by year diminished the Naval Estimates of this country by some £6,500,000, that they have each in their turn done something to reduce the building programme of the Navy, and that they are prepared still further to extend that reduction if other countries are willing to join them and to follow suit. I think we shall be able to put that case very strongly before the Hague Conference, and for my part I hope we shall have some success in the representations that we shall make there.
Let me now turn to the other question that was raised by my noble friend,
306
Lord Brassey—the question of the Naval Reserves. That is a very important and a very intricate subject to deal with. A strong Committee was appointed in 1902 to examine the question, and many of the recommendations of that Committee have since been carried out. At that time the condition of things was very different. There were then an immense number of ships which it was supposed were to be manned in time of war. The number of ships has been greatly diminished, and the conditions, therefore, are very different. Two of the things that Sir Edward Grey's Committee recommended were the strengthening of the Fleet Reserve, and the better training of the Royal Naval Reserve. The Fleet Reserve, which consists partly of men who have-been on the shorter period of engagement in the Navy—they are engaged for twelve years, five years on active service and seven years in the Reserve—has greatly increased since that time. They were something over 5,000 at the time the Committee sat in 1902; they are now upwards of 15,000, and are increasing every day. Sir Edward Grey's Committee also strongly recommended the establishment of Naval Volunteers. There are now 4,200 Naval Volunteers, and they are a very effective body.
The difficulty that arises is that there are two opinions as to the proportion that the Reserve should bear to the active men in the Naval service. Sir Edward Grey's Committee put that number as high as fifty per cent. Naval opinion now takes a very much lower view and talks about fifteen or twenty per cent. I think there is a general agreement that the Royal Fleet Reserve is the best Reserve for the Navy and is the one on which we can best depend on account of the men having received their training in the Naval Service itself. But, after all, the main and most important part of naval seamen must be the men of long service, because the work of a seaman now has become so intricate, so complex, I might almost say so scientific, that it requires long training to ensure success. Consequently the number of men who are at any time in the Navy on comparatively short service or non-continuous service, cannot be a very large one, and, therefore, beyond a certain number we cannot get

307
Royal Fleet Reserve men from this source, but they are increasing. They will increase, and every encouragement will be given to them.
With regard to the Royal Naval Reserve, considerable changes have been made. It was before I became First Lord that the decision was arrived at. They have been given an entirely new system of training. Instead of being trained at shore batteries and on training ships, with the exception of a small number during the next four years which are to be used for men who, having: engaged on the old system, have not completed their term of service, and are unwilling to serve under the new conditions, they will in future be entirely trained on board seagoing ships, and will, instead of doing their fourteen days a year on shore or in the training ships, be trained twenty eight days every second year in seagoing ships, and principally in the nucleus ships in reserve in the various ports round the United Kingdom. Entry into the Royal Naval Reserve has been for the time arrested, but for my part I am strongly in favour of maintaining the Royal Naval Reserve, and so far as I am concerned, I would not be a party to its abolition, though undoubtedly its number must be reduced, and will be reduced, I should think, to some extent by the more strict conditions of service 'which have been imposed. The suspension of entry has now continued for about a year and a half, and a waste is going on at the rate of about 8 per cent, a year. I think that within a very short time it will be possible and desirable to re-open the entries to the Royal Naval Reserve both of officers and of men. I do not.say exactly under what conditions, but with the idea at any rate of increasing considerably the number of stokers that will be available for the Reserve. I think I have answered the questions put to me by Lord Brassey. In conclusion I would say, as I began, that I do feel the responsibility which rests upon me in agreeing and being a party to the reduction that has been made, and I firmly believe that that reduction will not lead to any damage to our country.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will excuse me, if, like my noble friend, Lord Cawdor,
308
I address the few remarks with which I shall trouble the House to that part of the noble Lord's speech which refers to the shipbuilding programme. Although I fully admit the great importance of the question of Reserves, I will defer till some other occasion any remarks I may have to make upon that subject. Anyone who has listened to the speech which has just been delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and who has read the speeches which were made by his two colleagues on the shipbuilding programme in the other House of Parliament, can hardly fail to have been impressed by the difference of tone adopted. In the other House the great question was economy, and what was produced and flaunted before the House was the part which the Naval Lords have played in this matter.
The Naval Lords, by a very unfortunate course on the part of the Prime Minister, were brought out and placed in very clear contradistinction to the other Members of the Board of Admiralty. I need hardly say that that is entirely contrary to the whole theory and practice of the Board of Admiralty during, at all events, the last thirty years. The Secretary to the Admiralty and the Prime Minister were both well aware of this, for they said that they knew it was inconvenient and for many reasons undesirable, and that they only did it because of very exceptional circumstances. To-night the noble Lord took quite a different course. He separated himself entirely from those colleagues. He said, and I am sure that anyone who knows anything of Naval affairs and of the Board of Admiralty will cordially agree with him, that the Board of Admiralty is one and indivisible, and that the First Lord is the person who is responsible to Parliament and to the country for the action of that Board.
How can you reconcile that with what was said in the other House? What was the reason why a totally different statement was made in that House? The Prime Minister said it was an exceptional case. His reason for introducing the Naval Lords was that he wished to throw upon them the responsibility for the reduction which was being made, to assure the country that it was they

309
who were primarily responsible for it, and he went so far as to say that they had asked him to state that to the House of Commons. If the naval Members of the Board of Admiralty made that statement I am sure that the First Lord himself could not have been aware of it, because he knows as well as anyone how improper it is to put forward professional advisers and throw upon them the responsibility for a programme. Those of your Lordships who read the papers on Saturday morning will have seen that it is said, more especially in the Radical Press, that we are perfectly safe because this is the programme of the Naval Lords. I confess that this is rather an undignified and undeserved position in which to place my noble friend.
In the statement we have listened to to-night we have heard a variety of circumstances in justification for the reduction in the programme which were not stated in the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord has stated them in some detail with regard to the naval proposals of two or three other countries whose rogrammes he has learned are very much in arrear. Those who have no official information and who are merely private Members of this House of course accept that statement, and moreover the First Lord of the Admiralty has means of forming a judgment which are not accessible to other Members of this House. At the same time one cannot help reminding him that in cutting off one '' Dreadnought" at a time when we have unfortunately probably lost the '' Montagu "we are weakening the Navy of this country.
Further, I do not understand why the programme of 1907–8 was introduced in the other House. The noble Lord stated to-night that he did not go on any standard, that he gave up standards, and that his intention was to proceed from year to year according to the information he received. If that is so, why was the programme of 1907–8 laid before the other House of Parliament? We remember what the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War said in this House the other day. He said that the mandate was economy, and he reminded us, in speaking on the Army Estimates, that economy and the cutting down of expenditure had been
310
the first principle which His Majesty's Government had observed. Of course, in this way it may have been desirable to promise future economies to the other House, but that is not in accordance with the statement which has been made to us to-night. I do not understand how you can tell now what the circumstances of next year will be. You have the Hague Conference, and you do not even know what the result of it will be. You say that if the Hague Conference proves unsuccessful you will lay down another ship. But can the noble Lord inform us how it is known already that the fourth ship can be cut off?
The noble Lord gave the Hague Conference as one of the reasons for being additionally anxious to spend as little on the Fleet as he could. Does the noble Lord really believe that anything-he spends this year will have any effect on the Hague Conference? Does he-suppose that Germany or France are-going to alter their programme because he lays down one battleship less? In reference to this matter I regret most bitterly the use that has been made of the names of the Naval Lords. I hope my noble friend will point out to his colleagues what an indiscretion, to say the least of it, they have committed. The noble Lord has told us that no pressure of any kind or sort was laid upon them. Does he assure us, too, that these reductions were suggested by them, for that is what the Prime Minister's words come to? The Prime Minister did not mean merely that the Naval Lords acquiesced in certain reductions, but he said that they had recommended them, and that they had expressly asked that the House of Commons might be informed of this, in order, to use the Prime Minister's exact words, that they might get the credit for it. I must say it does surprise me very much to hear that the Naval Lords asked that any such assurance should be given to the House of Commons.
There are many noble Lords in this House who are identified with the Navy, and who have been connected at various times with Boards of Admiralty. I should like to ask whether any of them remember any case in which a Naval Lord ever asked that anything he had done or

311
recommended might be laid before the House of Commons? This statement was made in Parliament and relied upon, and the public rely upon it. The public is relying at this very moment for their safety upon the acceptance of a programme which, as they have been assured, has been laid down by the Naval Lords. One might almost ask that Papers should be laid on the Table. Your Lordships all know that when a Minister relies upon a statement he is bound to prove it if called upon to do so. Of course, it would be absurd in this case to move that any Papers should be laid on the Table, because everyone who knows anything about the Admiralty is aware that it would be contrary to the whole principle and practice of the Admiralty and to public policy to do so; but what I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that the very fact that a statement of this sort has been made which it is impossible for Ministers to substantiate shows how improper it was for it ever to have been made.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty has not convinced me by the reasons he has given for the reductions in the shipbuilding programme that have been made, and I am particularly anxious about the fate of the vessel whose existence is to depend on the Hague Conference. But the chief anxiety that I feel on this question is due to the opinions held by the Secretary to the Admiralty and published when he was sitting on the Commission appointed to inquire into our food supply in time of war. He then expressed the opinion that if all private property at sea not contraband were exempted from capture or destruction by belligerents all the difficulties which that Committee were appointed to consider would disappear and all proposed remedies would become unnecessary. As if food would not at once be declared contraband of war by any nation which found itself at war with us! I confess that when the present Government was formed I was sorry to see a person holding such opinions given a post at the Admiralty. I had hoped that a position would have been found for him inland. The manner in which he has lately dealt with the Sea Lords, as reported in the newspapers, has greatly
312
increased my anxiety. The recent Conference held in the Royal Gallery of this Palace and the Hague Conference are, I think, institutions that have the greatest possible use in preserving peace and in dealing with international law and difficulties which may arise while peace is still existing. But in war their resolutions are of no value.
I think it would be more civil if our newspapers would use the term "protection of our food supply in time of war "Instead of "command of the sea." We do not want the command of the sea in order to threaten or hurt anybody. We merely mean to ensure it for the purpose of feeding ourselves. The majority which the Government obtained at the last election was partly due to Mr. Chamberlain's suggestion for taxation of foreign food. At the present moment we are entirely dependent for our food supply in time of war on our Navy alone. If we have no Navy we shall have no bread. If we have too small a Navy it is as if we had none at all. We are told that if the resolution at the Hague is passed it is to be considered equivalent to a third battleship. It is doubtful what action will be taken on that resolution by foreign Powers. It will probably be used as a blind. In war the Hague Conference resolutions would be of no value. It is true they might be made into paper boats, but are we to fill up blank s in our line-of-battle with paper boats?
Friendly relations with other Powers are not sufficient reasons for reducing armaments. Those friendly relations are chiefly due to the fact that we are believed to be possessed of sufficient power to be able to assist a friend in time of need. We can make a quarrel in a quarter of an hour, but we cannot build a battleship and get her ready for sea in less than fifteen or eighteen months, by which time the war might be over. I hope people in this country will not continue to boast of their ability to beat Germany in shipbuilding. Germany has not yet taken her coat off in this matter, and when she does we may be surprised at the result. The slackening off of shipbuilding on our part will have the opposite effect to that looked for. It will cause other countries to strain every nerve to get level with us. Therefore I submit

313
that these reductions do not increase the chance of maintaining peace.
*LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I desire in the fewest possible words to put a question to His Majesty's Government, a question which has the object of removing the uncertainty which I am sure has been left in the minds of my noble friends on this side of the House by the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The burden of the noble Lord's speech was that the reduction of the shipbuilding programme was merely a matter of ordinary annual routine, a thing that has been done in prevous years on more than one occasion. But His Majesty's Government in another place claimed unusual credit for this reduction, and treated it as part of a new policy, a policy of reduction of armaments which was to be an example to other countries.
What we want to know on this side of the House is whether there is a new policy or not. According to the Prime Minister, there is a new policy which is to be an example to the other nations of the world. But according to the First Lord of the Admiralty, as we understand him, there is no new policy; the reductions which have been ordered are merely part of the annual routine, which may be corrected or altered according to circumstances. His Majesty's Government cannot have it both ways. It is on this point then that many noble Lords on this side of the House would like to have a clear answer. Is there a new policy or is there not; and if there is a new policy, what is that policy and how far is the reduction to proceed? Are we to go so far in reduction and setting an example to other countries that we abandon the policy of the two-Power standard, or is reduction to proceed so gradually that the policy of the two-Power standard will be maintained? I venture, with all due deference, to ask His Majesty's Government to give us an assurance on that point.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, when not many days ago we had a debate in this House upon the reduction in the Army and were confronted by the champions of the "Blue-water" school, I did not antici-
314
pate that in a very few days the question would be again before your Lordships— this time, whether the force on that blue water should be reduced or not. Personally I did not believe in the rumours that the Navy was going to be reduced, but we are now confronted by the fact that the shipbuilding programme has been materially curtailed. I hope the noble Lord will clearly answer the question which has been put to him by my noble friend behind me, whether this means a change in policy. We have to look not only at the actual reduction in the Estimates, but also at the speeches in which that reduction was explained in the House of Commons. It was pointed out very clearly just now by my noble friend Lord Camperdown that the tone of the speeches and the course of the debate in the House of Commons were totally different from the speeches and the course of the debate in your Lordships' House to-night. I think I may say, with all friendliness to His Majesty's Government, that they have very much mismanaged the explanation of the reduction. They have mismanaged it in the House of Commons, and they have a difficulty in putting it right in this House.
Why was the explanation which has now been given by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth not given in the House of Commons? Why did they not explain that it was mainly due to information from other countries with reference to the shipbuilding of those countries? Why was it not explained that it was no great policy but scientific reasons that had actuated the Board of Admiralty in recommending the postponement of three destroyers and a certain number of submarines? So far as I know, Mr. Robertson never hinted at it in the House of Commons. The line he took up was that the Admiralty were determined to effect a reduction, and he gave no explanation. If I had spoken before my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty I had intended asking him why the reductions in these two items were proposed. I think the noble Lord has given a perfectly adequate explanation, but it is a scientific explanation. This is not a great reduction which is to play a great role when the Hague Conference meets; it is because they are not ready with their

315
designs that they have postponed this part of the programme.
Then again as to battleships. A battleship is to be struck off for the reasons which the noble Lord explained, not because we desire to retard the progress of our strength, but because there have been reductions by other Powers. And yet the Government talk about giving a lead. The whole question is involved in a perfect fog, and the difficulties are heightened by the ex-ordinary message said to have been sent by the Naval Lords to the House of Commons. When have officers, naval or military, ever desired to place themselves in communication with the House of Commons? I cannot think of any previous First Sea Lord or Second Sea Lord who would have wished to send a message to the House of Commons that they desired to reduce the Navy Estimates. Did not the First Lord of the Admiralty warn them and say, "It is an unprecedented course. I really cannot convey such a message to the House of Commons." If he did the Naval Lords were severely to blame for requesting such a message to be sent to the House of Commons.
In what a position does the Government statement put the Naval Lords? It is supposed that they, without any pressure, simply out of political considerations and after surveying the field of Europe and the existing conditions, made to the Board of Admiralty a recommendation for reductions.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: We held meetings of the Board at which the whole matter was brought forward. Undoubtedly I brought forward the desirability of making reductions, all the circumstances were surveyed, and all came unanimously to the conclusion announced.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I am glad to have elicited the statement that the Government did put before them the desirability of cutting down Estimates.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Of economy. I take the whole responsibility.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I am grateful to my noble friend for candidly telling us
316
the circumstances. They put an entirely different construction upon what has-happened. It is a matter so important that I do not regret going over the subject which has been dealt with by my noble friends. I do not wish to haggle about a single ship and a reduction that may or may not be justified, but we have to consider not only the reductions, but the language in which that course has been defended by the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman's view as to our naval policy. My noble friend Lord Camperdown has alluded to the absence of any explanation as to the reductions next year. Why should the Government state what they proposed to do in 1907–8 before they know what other Powers are going to do?
It is a new policy deliberately to change the programme with a contingent arrangement for the addition of another ship. There is a vague proposition in reference to the Hague Conference, and two forces appear to be operating upon, the Government—the desire for economy and the desire to be able to claim successfully the position of being first in the reduction of armaments. I am not encouraged to hope much from the Hague Conference, and if the First Lord would give half an hour to a conversation with Sir J. Fisher, an unrivalled expert on naval policy, upon his reminiscences of a previous conference it would be time well spent.
Another question which has cropped up is the two-Power standard, and some doubt has been expressed as to whether the policy of the Government in this respect is being adhered to in the true sense. I cannot believe that the First Lord would depart one jot from it. It would be wrong to work out the system with reference to the strength of two naval Powers merely without reference to all the changes that have taken place in Europe, and the contingencies that might arise. The naval policy of this country must be shaped, not simply in relation to the naval sterngth of any two Powers, but in proportion to the naval sterngth of the world. Not, of course, that our Navy should be equal to all others—that would be absurd— but having regard to the fact that nations, though they might not become our

317
adversaries, might in the event of war prove very uncomfortable neutrals. New dangers beset battleships from mines and submarines, and Japan lost two ships in one day from mines. Such considerations must affect the naval strength of a country such as ours, and such disasters would affect this country more than any other Power in Europe. We run a greater risk, for our national existence depends upon our naval strength.
The Prime Minister has expressed the opinion that the rivalry between nations is a rivalry of grandeur, and he used the word "swagger."the idea that nations are recklessly spending money out of pure rivalry shows ignorance of the true state of affairs. France would be ready enough to reduce her armaments, naval and military, if she only could, but she is not going in the Hague Conference to undertake to do so unless there are developments which she at any rate does not expect. This unfortunate expenditure all over Europe is not caused by any desire for glory or by vanity, but from a consideration of international relationships. Has Austria, for whose misfortunes we have every sympathy, kept up her army for swagger? Her army is being kept up for national exstence, in order to avoid the perils which, Heaven forbid, should assail her, but which are not so far removed from the political horizon that she can herself undertake to reduce her armaments.
With regard to Germany I should like to say a few frank and friendly words. If there is an idea that Germany is arming against ourselves I think it is a mistake; if it is thought that Germany is arming against Prance, or Russia, or any particular Power I believe that is also a mistake. Why does Germany push on her naval expansion, which France will plead compels her to do the same? Not for aggression, but from a settled policy. She requires more territory for her teeming millions. She feels that she must have colonies, that she must expand, as other growing countries must expand, that she must have outlets for her commerce, and that she must have sea power like us to hold her own against every possible effort to limit her colonial expansion or paralyse her action. Her Ministers have no desire for war. But
318
they have an Imperial German policy Is it likely that anything that will happen at the Hague Conference will arrest what they consider to be their mission— what the Emperor considers to be a mission placed upon himself to expand the German power? Those who think so are living in a fool's paradise.
I wish as much as any Member of your Lordships' House, as much as any democratic Member of Parliament, as much as airy of those who dream of universal peace, that I could believe with Tennyson in the time—
" When the war drum throbs no longer and
the battle Hags were flurled
In the Parliament of man, the federation of the world."
At all events, let us look to it that the white ensign of the British Fleet remains without question and without doubt unharmed over that Fleet. I hope it; will not be said when observations such as I have made are placed before the public that they are pessimistic or gloomy Sometimes the cold water of common sense is almost as necessary as enthusiasm. I can admire enthusiasm, and I admire the democrary which, knowing little of foreign diplomacy and the struggles of the nations for supremacy, think that war merely means either the glory of a certain class or heavy taxation, and through ignorance plead for a smaller Navy; but as I said in another debate last week, it is not for the leaders of a Party, not for a man like the Prime Minister to encourage them in Utopian hopes that the mere calling together of a conference will make it unnecessary to continue that steady progress, that building up to a standard, that building up to ail the requirements of the case which I fear for many years must be the fate of this: country.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I hope as a newcomer to this House that I may be allowed to address your Lordships on the important subject now before you. I have myself in the past been not infrequently connected with the Admiralty in an official capacity and during the past two years I have taken an active part in pressing a reduction on the Government, and in urging that there

319
should be in consequence a reduction in taxation.
The noble Viscount who has just addressed the House speaks with very great authority on this subject. He was twice at the Admiralty for very long periods, once in the first administration of Mr. Gladstone, when economy was the order of the day, and when the Navy was administered for less than £10,000,000 a year. I was then his colleague at the Admiralty; and served under him. His last experience of the Navy was from 1895 to 1900, when a very different order of things prevailed, and when the expenditure upon the Navy was lavish in the highest degree. I think I am right in saying that while the noble Viscount presided over the Admiralty he added no less than two millions a year to the expenses of administration. I do not propose to find any fault with him. All I wish to do is to call his attention to that period when he was presiding at the Admiralty, and to ask him to consider what has happened between then and now which may tend to a more moderate expenditure.
The expenditure upon the Navy has increased since Lord Goschen presided over the Board by no less than eight millions a year. Expenditure on the Army has increased by no less than ten millions a year; the two together amounting to an increase of eighteen millions a year in the seven years. That is taking the date 1898, immediately before the war in South Africa. Now I invite the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who presided at that time over the Army, to consider the expenditure then and the point which it has now reached, and whether circumstances in the state of Europe have not occurred which would justify a considerable reduction at this moment.
Many things of the greatest importance have happened during the last three years bearing on this subject. In the first place, we have had the collapse of Russia. When I look back at the speeches of Lord Goschen, made between the years 1895 and 1900, I observe that he almost invariably defended the great increases which he made in the Navy on the ground
320
of the increase in the Russian Navy; and I think I may claim also that the great increase in the Army of late years has been due to the fear of Russia. There was the fear of the invasion of India on the part of Russia through Afghanistan. But during the last three years the power of Russia has collapsed. Russia has been defeated in the Far East, her navy has absolutely disappeared, her ships have either been sunk or captured by the Japanese. We have therefore this state of things, that the naval power of Russia has disappeared, and everybody, I think, admits that it must be many years— some people say ten and others a much longer period—before Russia's power can be revived, and before there can be any attempt either to invade India or even to resuscitate her navy.
But other important things have occurred. First among them is that which the noble Marquess opposite has been responsible for, and which I venture to think will be one of his principal claims to fame in history—namely, the Agreement which has been come to with France under which all matters in dispute have been settled, and every difficulty between us and that Power removed. All questions of jealousy as regards our position in Egypt have been removed, as also have all questions of jealousy between our selves and France in Morocco. That seems to me a very important matter, tending to justify a reconsideration of our expenditure upon the Navy and Army. But other important matters still have occurred. There has been the Agreement with Japan, the immediate effect of which has been that our position in the Far East as regards our Navy has been reassured. We have been enabled to recall the whole of the five battleships which were maintained in those waters, and they are now concentrated at home.
Further, there has been a very great and important change in policy in Naval administration, for which I have nothing but praise—the change carried out by Lord Selborne and Admiral Fisher, and under which the whole of our powerful vessels have been concentrated in Home waters or in the Mediterranean or within easy touch of these shores. It was discovered that the cruisers on which we relied to defend our commerce were of no

321
value in time of war as against the more modern armoured cruisers, with the result that the greater part of them were recalled, and the late Prime Minister boasted that by a courageous stroke of the pen they were struck off the Navy List. The result has been that all our powerful vessels have been concentrated at home, and I do not hesitate to say what I think was also affirmed by the late Government, that the strength of the Navy has been nearly doubled by this operation—that is to say, the effective strength of the Navy for purposes of offence and defence against the only Powers which it would be likely to meet at the present time.
There is yet one other important matter to which I do not think sufficient attention has been called of late in the Press, and that is the result of the experiences of the naval war between Russia and Japan as to the comparative value of our Fleet compared with that of other Powers. I think it has been admitted I by every expert who has written upon the subject that the result of the experiences in the late war is to show the very high value which attaches to battleships of large size and great power in comparison with smaller vessels. The battleships of large size proved in the late war to be of the greatest and highest value. The smaller battleships are relegated into the background, and it has been proved that the presence, in a great fleet of battleships, of an inferior type of coast defence vessels was rather an embarrassment to the Fleet than a source of strength.
Let me ask the House to consider what the effect of this experience is upon the value of our vessels as compared with those of France and Germany. The wisdom of our own naval constructors in building battleships of 12,000, 14,000, and 15,000 tons as compared with the very much smaller vessels constructed by France and Germany, has thus been proved. At the present moment you may divide the battleships of the world into two classes—the smaller type of battleship averaging about 11,000 tons, and the larger battleships averaging 14,000, or 15,000 tons. The policy of Germany has been to build small battleships and to arm them with compara-
322
tively light guns and with secondary batteries. The policy of our Admiralty during the last ten years has been to build large battleships armed with the most powerful guns, and the result of that policy is that whereas at the present moment Germany has not a single battleship of the large type over 13,000 tons this country has thirty-seven such vessels averaging no less than 14,800. France at the same time has only four vessels of 13,000 tons and those not quite completed. All the rest of her vessels are under that size, and average about 11,000 tons. I say that this is a condition of things which is very satisfactory to this country. As regards armoured cruisers, the position is even stronger. England has fourteen armoured cruisers of the large size averaging 13,000 tons; France has only four averaging 12,000 tons, and Germany has one with a tonnage of 10,400 tons.
In view of all these facts, it does seem to mo that the Admiralty of this country is wise in holding its hand, and that it is possible to make some reduction in the great expenditure upon our Navy The noble Viscount who has just sat down seems to be averse to any reduction whatever. I think that public opinion during the general election manifested itself strongly in favour of a reduction of expenditure. Although the war in South Africa has been concluded for something like three or four years, we are still under the burden of the taxation which was imposed for the purposes of that war. The income-tax stands at 1s. in the £.—an unprecedented rate, I believe, in time of peace—and all the taxes which were imposed upon tea, sugar, beer, tobacco, and spirits with the intention of making the labouring classes contribute—and very properly—towards the war still remain unrepealed, with the single exception of 1d. upon tea. In these circumstances it does seem to me desirable that the country should consider the possibility of reducing its armaments. I believe it can do so with perfect safety in consideration of the changed circumstances which I have brought under the notice of your Lordships. The noble Viscount opposite seemed to think that the two-Power

323
standard was going to be abandoned. I did not understand from the speeches of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth in this House, or of Mr. Robertson in the House of Commons, that there was any idea of abandoning the two-Power standard.
EARL CAWDOR: The Prime Minister's speech.
LORD EVERSLEY: The fact is that the two-Power standard at the present moment has been largely exceeded. I believe that never in the history of the country has the naval power of Great Britain been so superior to that of other Powers. My noble friend Lord Tweed-mouth, with great justice, disclaimed the task of making comparisons with other Powers. I think that is a very proper position for the First Lord of the Admiralty to take, but I do not see why those behind him who have not the same responsibility should not express their views upon this subject. For my part I do not hesitate to say, and I am confirmed in that view by many naval men with whom I have discussed the matter, that never at any time has the Navy of this country been so superior to those of other Powers whose navies could be brought against us. I can well understand that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, should wish it to be understood that they fully and thoroughly assent to the policy of their Board. I did not, however, understand my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth to shelter himself or the Government behind that fact. Although it is undesirable as a general rule that the head of either service should quote his expert advisers, yet I think that in the particular circumstances of the present case it was desirable that this should be done.
My noble friend Lord Goschen also alluded to the Hague Conference. I think that the action His Majesty's Government are taking with regard to that Conference is a wise one. I do not understand that it differs very substantially from the line which the noble Viscount himself took in 1900 with reference to the first Conference at the Hague.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: But I am now guided by the experience of the previous Conference and the difficulties which were encountered. Moreover, we did not reduce before the Conference.
LORD EVERSLEY: I contend that there is no substantial difference between the course which the noble Viscount, then took and the course which the present Government are taking with reference to the forthcoming Conference. I hope that the proposals of the present Government will be successful. I have no doubt very great difficulties will be encountered, especially on the part of Germany, but at the same time I think it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to make these proposals. With one part of the speech of the noble Viscount I fully agree. I do not think we need be under the impression that the great increase in the German Navy is directed specially against this country, We must recollect that Germany has become a great commercial Power with a vast mercantile marine She has ambitions of a colonial Empire in all parts of the world, and I think we may not unreasonably suppose that her Ministers consider a strong Navy a matter of great importance. I do not see the smallest reason for thinking that the German Navy is intended to be a rival of our own; nor do I consider that there is any possible comparison at the present moment between the German Fleet and our own. I am one of those who believe that the strength of the country does not depend on armaments alone. I believe that sound finance and light, taxation, on which credit is founded, are at least as important as the building in large numbers of new ships which experience four or five years hence may show to be obsolete.

IRRIGATION IN CEYLON.
*LORD STANMORErose to move for correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Ceylon on the subject of irrigation works in that island. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is willing to give the Papers which I have asked for, and therefore it is not necessary

325
for me to do more than explain in a few words why I wish to have them.
The great irrigation works which prevailed in Ceylon in ancient times fell into disuse, and when England succeeded to the possession of Ceylon very little attention was paid to them. They were, however, still maintained in a fashion until the year 1833, when a Commission was sent out from England to make recommendations with regard to the government of that island, and among other things they made an unfortunate recommendation which completely upset the whole of the native regulations with regard to irrigation at that time. The Government did not become aware for a long time afterwards of the mischief they had done, but when they did become alive to it they at once set to work to remedy the evil. The work initiated by Sir H. Ward was continued by Sir W. Gregory, and in 1887 a Board was instituted which it was supposed would get rid of all the evils that existed, and the Board has done a great deal of good work during the last twenty years. The Board has now been abolished or is about to be abolished, and I have grave apprehensions that its abolition will restore many of the evils which its establishment was intended to remedy. I therefore beg to move for these Papers, and if they justify the opinion I have expressed I shall take further action in the matter at some subsequent date.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Ceylon on the subject of irrigation works in that island."—(Lord Stanmore.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, in replying to the noble Lord I have to say that there is no disposition either in the Colony or in the Colonial Office to overlook the great services which he performed for irrigation during his administration of the affairs of Ceylon. The noble Lord took the matter up at a time when the finances of Ceylon were in a very different state from what they are now, and carried out his policy with a courage which we do not forget.
326
The real reason for the change which has taken place in recent times is that the state of the Colony now, especially in the matter of finance, is very different from what it was then. I believe that the noble Lord at the time would have been very glad if he could have established a department for the management of this matter, but, even if that is not so, at any rate that is what has been done now, and the only reason for the dissolution of the Board which he quite proper established to carry out the work at the, time when he was Governor is that it is now possible to make this an ordinary part of the management of government in the usual way. There is no disposition whatever to do other than carry on the work of irrigation, and the Governor has every expectation that by the present arrangements he will be able to do so. I will not detain your Lordships further, as the noble Lord has stated that when he gets the Papers he may return to the matter later on. I propose to lay a very exhaustive Report on irrigation in the library, and I shall be quite willing to present to Parliament the latest Ordinance on the subject and any despatches bearing upon it.
On Question, Motion agreed, to and ordered accordingly.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
The Lords following were named of the Select Committee—M. Cholmondeley, E. Carlisle, E. Lytton, E. Plymouth, L. Stanmore.
The Committee to meet on Wednesday next at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own chairman.

POST OFFICE (LITERATURE FOR THE BLIND) HILL.

  SECOND READING
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the object to this Bill is to facilitate the transmission by post of books and papers impressed for the use of the blind. The Bill has already passed the other House

  327
  without opposition, and I sincerely trust your Lordships may see your way to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  LECKHAMPTON HILL RIOTS.
  *EARL RUSSELLrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it was proposed to reconsider the sentences passed by Mr. Justice Lawrence on July 6th, at the Gloucestershire Assizes, in connection with the rioting at Leck-hampton Hill. The noble Earl said: My Lords, since I put this question on the Paper I understand that the matter has been mentioned in another place. What I wish is to ask whether these sentences are having the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and, if so, to urge that a speedy decision is desirable as the men have already been twenty-four days in prison.
  I do not know whether the House are familiar with the circumstances, but the dispute arose out of an assertion of a right of way. It was not a case of mob violence or of any desire to destroy property in a wanton manner. There were altogether eight prisoners tried, convicted, and sentenced; and in particular I should like to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to one of them—a man named Barrett. This man, according to the evidence, took no part either in the rioting or in the actual demolition. I am informed that he simply made a speech to the crowd, the object of which was to invite them not to riot but to disperse peaceably, and he himself was not there when the violent proceedings took place. I will quote a few words from the summing up of Mr. Justice Lawrence to show your Lordships the spirit in which this matter was placed before the jury—
  "the Judge, in summing up, said that what irritated him more than anything was the man who got up and made a speech when there was no occasion for it. There were some people who, when they saw an eminence, could not
  328
  help getting on to it like a goat and making speeches. This reminded him of a great statesman who, whenever he stopped at a railway station, could not refrain from getting out of the train and making speeches. Barrett was one of that class of persons."
  I am told that this does not at all represent the attitude of this particular defendant, and if the Home Office on investigation should come, to that conclusion I do urge that they should come to it soon, because the man has been sentenced to four months imprisonment and has been in prison twenty-four days.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the answer to the question put to His Majesty Government by the noble Earl is in the affirmative. The matter is under consideration and representations with regard to it have been received by the Secretary of State. At the same time the noble Earl will not expect me to give him any hint of the decision to which the Secretary of State is likely to arrive. But I may tell the noble Earl that he is now in communication with the Judge who tried the case and hopes to be able to announce his decision before very long. I will see that what the noble Earl has said with regard to the special case of Barrett is brought to the attention of the Home Secretary.

  LOUPING ILL AND BHAXY.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (1) Whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into louping ill and braxy continues to exist for the purpose of further research; (2) If so, who are the members composing the Committee; (3) Where and by whom is the experimental work of the Committee to be carried on;(4) From what source are the expenses of further research or experiments to be met.
  In putting these questions I should like to express the great indebtedness which the North of England feels to the noble Earl and his predecessors at the Board of Agriculture for the zeal that has been displayed in this matter, which is of extreme importance to sheep masters in the North. The inquiry has done something to comfort them, and has

  329
  acted as a makeweight against the very unfortunate treatment they received with regard to sheep scab. I should like to make a small addition to my questions and ask whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give facilities to the tenant farmers for drenches in order that they may test the theory put forward by those who have conducted the inquiry. It is, of course, of great importance that we should be perfectly certain that this remedy is in point of fact a bona fide remedy, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will give all assistance possible to that end.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl (CARRINGTON): My Lords, the noble Duke will remember that the Departmental Committee was appointed in 1901 by Mr. Hanbury, and that it consisted of Professor Hamilton, of Aberdeen University, and others. The noble Duke was kind enough to provide the accommodation and the necessary facilities for the investigation of the disease, and I gladly take the first public opportunity that the Board have had of expressing their thanks to the noble Duke for his generosity in giving those facilities, as well as for the public spirit and liberality that he has shown. The noble Duke asks where and by whom the experimental work of the Committee is to be carried on. The Committee presented their Report in April of last year. It has been printed and laid before Parliament, and it contains a large amount of very valuable and useful information. The Board are also very much indebted to Professor Hamilton for the energy he devoted to the work. I may say that he gave up three years of his time to the investigation of this disease, which has been so often fatal in different parts of England. Their Report having been presented, the Committee technically have ceased to exist; but in view of one portion of the Report, with regard to facilities being given for the universal drenching of sheep, the Board have thought it desirable that arrangements should be made for trials with the proposed drench to be made on sheep suffering from these diseases. We have £100 still left in hand, and it is proposed to offer to Professor Hamilton this sum in order that the tests and experiments
  330
  may still be carried on under his auspices. Up to this moment we have not heard whether he is able to meet us on that point, but if he does he will no doubt wish to have the advice and co-operation of his colleagues on the Committee. As regards facilities for drenching, perhaps the noble Duke will allow me to make some inquiries upon that point, and to send him privately what information I obtain. I can assure him that everything will be done by the Department to facilitate the continuance of these experiments, which we owe entirely to the generosity and the liberality of the noble Duke himself.

  CHARITABLE LOAN (SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  REVENUE BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), Committee negatived; Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  Order or the day read for the House going into Committee.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, before the Motion is put I wish to make a protest against the rapidity with which this Bill is being proceeded with. It was read a second time on Friday, and to-day we are taking the Committee Stage, with two pages of Amendments to be introduced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I cannot myself see why, with an Autumn session before us, there should be any need for this very great celerity.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I can assure the noble Lord and the House that there really has been no undue haste in this matter. It is most desirable

  331
  that the Bill should become law before the recess; otherwise there will be considerable delay. The Bill cannot take effect before January 1st next year, but there are a great many technical matters which have to be dealt with by the Board before the Bill can take effect. There is no wish in any way to rush the Bill, but it is in the public-interest that your Lordships should permit it to go through as speedily as possible.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I wish to emphasise what my noble friend has said as to the desirability of this Bill being passed before the adjournment, but I cannot help at the same time reverting for a moment to what was said in the discussion on the business of the House which was initiated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition some time ago. Lord Lansdowne on that occasion pointed out that it would be much more convenient for this House if some Bills were first introduced here, and I ventured on that occasion to point out that it would be exceedingly advantageous if some of the Departmental Bills were introduced into your Lordships' House during the early part of the session, when we are by no means over-burdened with business. If this Bill had been introduced in your Lordships' House in the early part of the session it could have been fully discussed and referred to the Standing Committee, one of the most important bodies to which such Bills could be referred. This is a matter of procedure, and I hope that steps will be taken to introduce some Bills of this description in your Lordships' House in the first instance.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not think the complaint of my noble friend is quite justified in respect to the period at which this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. I am informed that it was introduced in that House on March 6th. My noble friend has been in the House of Commons much more recently than I have, and knows quite well the difficulty of proceeding with smaller measures. That, no doubt, is the reason why the Bill has come up to us so late.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: As a matter of personal explanation I wish to say that I did not bring any charge against the Government as to the period at which the Bill was brought up from the House of Commons. I merely said it would have been better if it had been introduced first into this House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:—
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to delete the words "That is to say, the actual percentage of tribasic phosphate of lime which has been dissolved or rendered soluble." He explained that it was proposed at a subsequent stage to insert a definition of the percentage of soluble and insoluble phosphates.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, to leave out from the word 'phosphates' in line 10, to the word ' insoluble' inline 12."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3: —
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to amend Sub-section 2 (which provides that "an official sampler shall, at the request of the purchaser and on payment by him of the required fee, and may, without any such request, take samples for analysis ") by substituting the words "a sample" for the word "samples."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 16, to leave out the word 'samples' and to insert the words 'a sample.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid a great many of the Amendments which came after turned on the word sample and the way in which the sample was to be sent to the analyst. He thought it would simplify matters if the noble Earl would explain the process to the House.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that the series of Amendments on the Paper were designed to carry out an undertaking given in the Standing Committee, that they would provide in the Act itself for a tripartite division of sample instead of leaving the matter to be dealt with by regulation.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved the insertion of a new sub-section to provide that where a sample had been taken with a view to the institution of any civil or criminal proceedings, the person taking the sample should divide it into three parts and cause each part to be marked, sealed, and fastened up, and should deliver or send by post two parts to the agricultural analyst and one part to the seller.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 21, after the word 'later to insert as a new sub-section:—(3) Where a sample has been taken with a view to the institution of any civil or criminal proceeding, the person taking the sample shall divide the sample into three parts, and shall cause each part to be marked, sealed, and fastened up, and shall deliver or send by post two parts to the agricultural analyst and one part to the seller."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to delete the words "shall divide the sample into two and;" and to insert two new subsections.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'shall divide the sample into two and,' and to insert ' (a) if the sample has not been divided into parts and the parts marked, sealed, and fastened up as hereinbefore mentioned, shall send a copy of the certificate of his analysis to the person who submitted the sample for analysis; and (b) if the sample has been so divided into parts.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved an Amendment to provide that the agricultural analyst to whom a sample was submitted should send a certificate of his analysis in all cases to the seller. He said this Amendment was proposed in order to give effect to the promise made in the Standing Committee that in every case a copy of the analyst's certificate should be transmitted to the vendor of the article analysed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, after 'and ' to insert 'in every case to the seller and.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved a proviso to the effect that if the agricultural analyst did not know the name and address of the seller he should send the certificate intended for the seller to the purchaser to be by him forwarded to the seller.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 30, after the word 'analysis, to insert the words 'provided that if the agricultural analyst does not know the name and address of the seller, he shall send the certificate intended for the seller to the purchaser, to be by him forwarded to the seller.' "— (Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 39, after the word ' witness, to insert the words 'provided that this sub-section shall not apply (a) where the sample has been taken otherwise than in the prescribed manner; or (b) where the sample has not been divided into parts, and the parts marked, sealed, and fastened up as hereinbefore mentioned.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONexplained, with regard to his next Amendment, that it was agreed on the Second Reading in the House of Commons that the Board should not authorise the institution of criminal proceedings except after a second analysis had been made by the chief analyst. An Amendment was to

  335
  be, inserted subsequently to this effect, and the present Amendment was consequential thereon.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 40, after the word 'proceeding,' to insert the words ' other than a proceeding which cannot be instituted until an analysis has been made and a certificate given; by the chief analyst.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I take it that this will refer to every prosecution.
  EARL CARRINGTON: No criminal prosecution can be undertaken except after a second analysis made by the chief analyst. That is a protection which is thought desirable.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid this would add considerably to the delay and expense. The county councils had experienced difficulty in getting agriculturists to avail themselves of the Act, and if before a county council could enter into a prosecution it was necessary, not only to have an analysis made by the official appointed by themselves with the sanction of the Board of Agriculture, but, in addition, to have a second analysis from the chief analyst, the Act would, he was afraid, become a dead letter.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that this provision was agreed to on the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, and he hoped the noble Lord would not persist in his opposition.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he made the more point of his objection in view of an Amendment which he intended moving to Clause 6, deleting the provision that a prosecution for an offence under the section should not be instituted except with the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. He did not think this should be a necessary condition precedent to a prosecution.
  EARL CARRINGTONadmitted that there was a great deal in what his noble friend had said, but as this course had been agreed to in the House of Commons he hoped the Amendment would be allowed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 26, after ' him ' to insert the words 'or at his request.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,in moving to omit subsection (3), said that this Amendment was strongly supported by the county councils of England, who not unnaturally felt as they had been selected for a great many purposes—for many more than they thought they ought to have been—as the vehicles by which various legislation should be carried out, and as they were the authority to institute prosecutions in the case of the adulteration of food and in regard to false weights and measures, that in this particular instance, where it was only a question of whether or no they should prosecute a person who was selling manure and foodstuffs in a fraudulent manner, it was rather hard that they should be obliged to get the consent of the Board of Agriculture in a proceeding to which there was no analogy. The only case which was at nil analogous was in regard to the Rivers Pollution Act, where, in dealing with manufacturers, they were obliged to get the consent of the Local Government Board before instituting any prosecution. But in that case there was a very marked difference. There was, or might be, not only an enormous interference with trade, but, what was still more objectionable, a partial interference with the trade in one part of the country and not with a similar trade in another part. Under these circumstances it was particularly necessary that the Local Government Board should have some control over the

  337
  prosecutions, but he was unable to see that there was any analogous necessity in the present case. In addition to that, the county councils felt that this provision would cause an enormous amount of delay and difficulty and that anything which would put difficulties in the way of the carrying out of the Act would practically defeat, to a very large extent, the good which they hoped would accrue from the Measure.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.).
  LORD BURGHCLEREhoped his noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture would not accede to the Amendment just moved. This clause had been inserted in consequence of many discussions in the Departmental Committee on whose Report the present Bill was founded. It was inserted at the wish of the traders themselves, and as a guarantee to them to a certain extent that the prosecutions under the Act would not be taken frivolously. It was a matter of the highest importance to the trade of the country that this section should be retained, and he sincerely trusted that the Amendment would not be accepted.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he would not have taken part in the discussion except for a communication which he had received from the county council of Durham, of which for several years he was a Member, asking him to put forward their opinion that this clause should be eliminated for the reasons which had already been given by the mover of the Amendment. The county council of Durham had carefully considered this matter, and had come to the conclusion that as a similar provision was not required in regard to prosecutions for the sale of adulterated human food, they were at a loss to understand why it should be necessary in regard to cattle food. He had no doubt that the President of the Board of Agriculture would explain this point, which at present they could not understand. They suggested that the noble Earl should insert in the place of the present clause a section which they had drafted.
  338
  He could not expect the noble Earl to accept the proposed clause straight away, or to do more than to promise to consider it, but he would read the proposed clause and ask his noble friend to postpone his final decision concerning it until the Report stage. The clause proposed by the county council of Durham was as follows—
  " Prosecutions for an offence under this section may be instituted as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the fertiliser of the soil or food for cattle or poultry was sampled as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed."
  Their object was to be able to prosecute in two places—first, in the place where the article was originally sold, and secondly, in the place where it was retailed. At the present moment it was possible to prosecute only in the place where it was originally sold.
  THE EARL OF MAYOhoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would not accept the Amendment, because there was great danger of frivolous prosecutions being instituted, especially in the country from which he came. There was no doubt that manufacturers must be protected, and it was much better that the central body who really had the care of agriculture and of farmers in their hands, should decide whether prosecutions should be undertaken. Therefore, to avoid frivolous prosecutions, he hoped the noble Earl would be firm, and refuse to accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid that this matter came before him when he was at the Board of Agriculture, and it was then made very clear that there would be grave risk of frivolous prosecutions unless some central authority were empowered to intervene. Having had some experience of the officials of the Board of Agriculture, he did not think that the power of refusing or of consenting to prosecutions could be in better hands than theirs. Therefore, he would vote with the noble Earl against the Amendment.
  EARL CARRINGTON: At first sight there seems to be a great deal in

  339
  what the noble Marquess and the noble Lord below the gangway have said, but I think a little consideration will show that the arguments the other way are so overwhelming that the House will be disposed to leave the clause as it stands. When a similar Amendment was proposed in the House of Commons, the matter was well threshed out, and the Amendment withdrawn without any division being taken. Under the law as it stands, criminal proceedings may be instituted by a person aggrieved, or by any body or association authorised by the Board, and by the Council of a County or borough. Several agricultural witnesses and the trade witnesses without exception made representations to Lord Burghclere's Committee as to the damaging effect which criminal proceedings would have on a trader's credit. Some of these fertiliser merchants are very big men, and have a great reputation in the country, and it would be a dreadful thing if some of them were, by means of a frivolous or malicious prosecution, put into the dock, because it must be remembered that these are criminal proceedings. It would be an uncommonly hard thing to put these men into the dock, possibly as the result of a frivolous prosecution. The traders urged that even if acquitted, great injury would be done to their business, and that therefore it was very necessary that the consent of the Board should be required in all cases. Leading members of the trade—and one must consider them a little—are quite content with the Bill as it stands, and regard it as a fair compromise between the conflicting interests, and their co-operation, I need hardly say, is most important for the efficient working of the Bill. Therefore I most respectfully hope the House will be willing to leave the matter as it stands.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that as the sense of the House appeared to be against the Amendment, he would ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdraw).
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to insert after "Fisheries "In line 3, the words, "And the Board shall not give such consent until the part of the sample re-
  340
  tained by the agricultural analyst has been analysed and a certificate of analysis given by the chief analyst." He stated that the Amendment was proposed in. pursuance of an undertaking which had been given.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 3, after the word ' Fisheries,"To insert the words ' and the Board shall not give such consent until the part of the sample retained by the agricultural analyst has been analysed and a certificate of analysis given by the chief analyst.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 14, to leave out from the word ' Act' to the word ' he ' in line 19. "— (Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to add the following: "But the proceedings may be taken as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the purchaser of the article to which the invoice or description relates, resides or carries on business as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the invoice or description was given." He said that the Amendment was moved in order to obviate any difficulty that might arise owing to a conflict between the English and the Irish jurisdiction.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 9, at the end, to add the words, ' But the proceedings may be taken as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the purchaser of the article to which the invoice or description relates resides or carries on business as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the invoice or description was given.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as Amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 16, to leave out from the word ' citric' to the end of line 17, and to insert the words 'acid or other solvent of the prescribed strength.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHasked why the words, "of the prescribed strength" were to be substituted for the words, "of the strength to be prescribed."the Bill itself did not prescribe any strength; he took it that the strength was to be prescribed in the regulations.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I can hardly see the difference between "the strength to be prescribed," and the "prescribed strength."
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHthought the expression already in the Bill was better than that now proposed to be inserted.
  EARL CARRINGTON: It is more or less a verbal Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will not object to it. I understand that "prescribed" also means prescribed by the Board of Agriculture. That is always the case.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to,
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 17, after the word 'prescribed' to insert the words ' and the percentage of soluble phosphates and percentage of insoluble phosphates mean respectively the percentage of tribasic phosphate of lime which has been, and that which has not been rendered soluble.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to he received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 189.)

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  OPEN SPACES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  Clause 1:—
  THE EARL OF MEATHpointed out that the purpose of the Bill was to consolidate the enactments relating to open spaces. Among those Acts was the Local Government Act, 1888, in Clause 1 of which the words "administrative county" were used, and in Clause 31 of which was to be found the expression "county boroughs." He thought it must be by an oversight that the words, "administrative," and "county," had been omitted from the present Bill, because in certain counties there were two or more county councils, and if the words were not inserted, those administrative county councils and certain county boroughs might be excluded from the purview of the Act. He therefore moved the Amendment of which he had given notice for the purpose of ensuring that administrative county councils and county boroughs should not be omitted from the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the first word, ' any,' to insert the word ' administrative,' and after the second ' any' to insert the word ' county ' "—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think the Amendment of the noble Earl is at all necessary. The words were suggested some time ago by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, and they have been carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Board as well as by Parliamentary Counsel, and everybody is agreed that the words in the Bill are in proper form and include the councils of administrative counties. The words are really not necessary. There are, in fact, no county councils except the councils of administrative counties. The term used is the usual one; if appears in numerous Acts, and no question has ever been raised as to the words "admintrative," and "county." It is not necessary or even proper to refer separately to county boroughs, because a county borough is a municipal borough.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid he was not a lawyer, and of course accepted the noble Earl's statement that it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to exclude the authorities to which he had referred. On that assurance he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to insert after the word "discharged"the words "either absolutely or if the grant was for a term of years or other limited interest during the continuance of that interest." He said that the Amendment was to provide for a case where an open space was leased to the local authority for a limited period, at the end of which it would revert to the trustees or owners. While the local authority had the open space any special rate levied by the trustees under private Acts was suspended, as the local authority would maintain the open space, but when the local authority's lease came to end the trustee's power to levy a special rate must revive. The Amendment was really in the nature of a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 3, after the word ' discharged,' to insert the words 'either absolutely, or it the grant was for a term of years or other limited interest during the continuance of that interest.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14:—
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid that his object in moving the insertion of the words "or acquisition" was to carry out the purport of the Memorandum attached to the Bill, which stated, inter alia, that the purpose of the measure was to remove inconsistencies Under the Bill as it stood, a county council would be able to give money to support or to contribute to the support of open spaces outside their own area, but they would have
  344
  no power to assist in the acquisition of such open spaces. That seemed to be a somewhat ridiculous position. It was very desirable, under certain circumstances, that a county council should be able to acquire as well as to support or to contribute to the support of such open spaces. He might instance, as an illustration, county council A, with a thickly populated district, on the borders of county council B, whose area was thinly populated. Supposing it were necessary to provide an open space for the congested district of county council A, and that county council A had no land suitable for the purpose, while just over the border in the area of county council B a very suitable site came into the market. Under the Bill county council A would, not be able to assist in acquiring that open space which would be largely used by its own ratepayers, and county council B would have no stimulus to do so as very few of its ratepayers would, benefit thereby; whereas if county council A was able to offer a substantial sum towards the purchase price the open space would very likely be secured. This was no hypothetical case. Such an instance had occurred within his own knowledge. Largely through steps taken by the organisation with which he was connected it was possible for boroughs to purchase lands outside their own areas; the power had been used with good results, and they desired to see the same power now extended to county councils.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, line 38, after the word ' support,' to insert the words 'or acquisition.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I cannot accept the word '' acquisition "as well as" support.'' The proposal involves a substantial extension of the power given to county councils by existing Acts to contribute to the support of recreation grounds provided by private persons or authorities; it proposes to enable them to find the money for the purchase of such grounds without necessarily having any control over their management. I think my noble friend will see that even if it is desirable in itself, which I do not wish

  345
  now to argue, it is inadmissible on the ground on which other proposed Amendments have been ruled out of order, namely, that it is beyond the scope of a consolidating measure. I have twice stated that I propose that this measure should be a consolidating measure, and that nothing fresh should be introduced into it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17: —
  THE EARL OF MEATHmoved the insertion of the following new paragraph—
  "In the case of the City of London, out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, or out of the consolidated rate of the City."
  He pointed out that under the Open Spaces Act, 1881, Section 12, the Corporation of the City of London were entitled to defray the expenses of carrying out the Act out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, and if this was a consolidation Bill surely those words ought now to be inserted. The City of London, although one of the authorities to which the measure applied, had no power under the Bill of spending a penny, which, he thought, was a very inconsistent position. If it were said that the metage on grain had practically ceased, he would ask what about the words "or otherwise?" Why should the City of London be excluded from all further power of obtaining open spaces? When one remembered what they had done in the past in this direction it seemed very invidious that the City should be precluded from being able to carry on their beneficent work. The House would be aware of the splendid work of the City of London in the purchase of that, perhaps, finest of the parks of the world —Epping Forest—of the magnificent beeches at Burnham, and of large parks such as those at Finsbury and Ham, besides numerous other open spaces. This being a consolidating measure, he thought they were entitled to ask that the words of the Act of 1881 should be inserted, and that the City of London
  346
  should not be treated differently from every other borough in the Metropolis. Every Metropolitan borough council would be able to acquire open spaces; the City of London alone would be excluded.
  Amendment moved—
  '' In page 10, line 22, after paragraph (e) to insert the following new paragraph:—'(f) In the case of the City of London, out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, or out of the consolidated rate of the City.' "—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I quite agree with everything the noble Earl has said about the good work of the City of London in regard to parks and open spaces, but there is one fatal objection to the Amendment, and that is that it imposes a charge on the rates, and therefore cannot possibly be inserted in the House of Lords. I think that disposes of the Amendment of my noble friend; it is not possible for us to accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 190.)

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3, agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEmoved to omit Clause 4, the object of which was to substitute fourteen days for one month as the period within which answers should be given to notices served under the Act. He explained that in 1883, when the first Labourers Act was passed, it was necessary to insert three notices in the local papers for three successive weeks; in addition to that, notice was served on the owner,

  347
  to whom a month was given in which to make an answer. It was now proposed to give the owner only a fortnight. This period, in his opinion, was quite insufficient. Under the Act of 1883 there were five methods of serving the notice. First, the notice could be served personally on the person required to be served; secondly, if such person was abroad, or could not be found, his agent might be served for him; thirdly, if he had no agent, or the agent could not be found, the notice might be served or left on the premises; fourthly, in lieu of any of the foregoing methods the notice might be left at the usual or last-known place of abode of the person required to be served; or fifthly, the notice might be served by post in a prepaid letter addressed to him at his usual or last-known place of abode. It was quite evident that the district council would naturally choose the method which was the least trouble to itself. Even under the existing law it was quite possible that a notice might fail to reach its destination before the statutory period had elapsed, and if that was the only reason against the proposed change he thought it was a very sufficient one. But in addition it had to be remembered that the local authority must state whether they intended to acquire land by purchase or by lease for ninety-nine years. In the case of a limited owner this made a great deal of difference, as it was very necessary that he should have advice on the subject, as it was quite possible that money might have to be paid into Court, and it might be extremely difficult for him to get it out. In addition, trustees might have to be consulted who were scattered over different parts of the country; they would have to write one to another, and they naturally would not decide without consulting their legal adviser. Under these circumstances a fortnight would very soon pass, and it seemed to him that that was a very good reason why the present limit should be adhered to. It should not be forgotten that His Majesty's Government had expressed the hope that as the result of this Bill, within the short space of two or three years no less than 25,000 new labourers cottages would be erected. During the whole
  348
  period since the first Act was passed in 1883, only 17,000 cottages had been erected, so that it was expected that at least 50 per cent, more would be erected within a very short time. From this it would be readily understood that in various parts of Ireland a considerable amount of ground would be required for the purpose, and many landowners and land agents would be much occupied in considering whether or not they could accept the applications that were made to them. That being so, it was only reasonable that the time limit should be left as it at present stood. He knew that His Majesty's Government were very anxious to do all that they could to expedite matters under the Bill, and he was sure that no one on the Opposition side of the House would object to helping them as much as possible in that respect; but justice ought to be done to all parties concerned, and, after all, one month in which to consider the question was not a very long time. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 4."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF ARRANsaid that although theoretically this clause might accelerate the working of the Act, it would only do so by a short time, and in practice it would give rise not only to very great inconvenience but sometimes to great injustice. He would remind their Lordships that while a month was a very short time to wait, a fortnight was a very short time in which to work. Owing to the peculiar conditions which existed in Ireland, great difficulties might ensue. On many estates, and particularly on small estates, there was no single resident agent. On the contrary, many agents had for their sole business the management of a large number of small estates situated a long way from their own place of residence. Owing to this, and to the fact that each estate had many calls upon the agent, it would very often be impossible, or at any rate extremely inconvenient and difficult, for the agent to be able to draft answers to the notices in time. He hoped the Government would agree to the omission of the clause.
  LORD DENMANsaid he was glad to hear that the Bill on the whole met with approval from noble Lords opposite, and that they desired to expedite its passage. He regretted, however, that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment which had been moved. He would point out that the owner would really have a great deal more than fourteen days, as there would probably be quite six weeks before the inspector would be called upon to decide in any particular case. The whole object of the Bill was to save time and expense, and this was one of the provisions by which the Government hoped to accelerate the working of the Act. There were precedents for such a course being taken in the Public Health Acts both of England and of Ireland, and he did not think the arguments which the noble Lord had advanced were sufficient to warrant the Government in departing from those precedents.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that this was not a question of precedent, but of the best way of scouring justice. The labourers' code was not a code of yesterday. The first Act was introduced in 1883, and since then there had been nine or ten Acts of Parliament, and a month had been the time given for the notices. For what reasons did the Government wish to make such a brand-new departure? There was no six weeks in the business at all; the answers had to be given within a fortnight, and if they were not given within a fortnight the person was shut out. Surely it was reasonable that the existing law should be allowed to stand in this respect. It had worked no inconvenience. He was all in favour of rapidity, but rapidity could be purchased too dearly. People were entitled to an opportunity of knowing what was being done and what was proposed, and as the existing law had worked fairly well, and no case whatever had been made out for such a change, he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
  LORD HEMPHILLhoped the House would not agree to the Amendment. The great object of the Bill was to expedite proceedings under the Labourers Act. As had already been observed since 1883 only 17,000 odd labourers
  350
  cottages had been built. That was the strongest argument for the passage of the present Bill as it stood. It was a monstrous thing that in twenty-three or twenty-four years, throughout the whole of Ireland, where there was so much poverty, and where there were such wretched habitations for the poor, only 17,000 odd cottages had been built. This Bill had been very elaborately considered by the Standing Committee of the other House upon which all the representatives from Ireland, with a few exceptions, had had an opportunity of stating their opinions upon this important subject, and the Bill had come before their Lordships' House without, he believed, this point having been even advocated by the representatives of the landlords in another place. If a fortnight would not answer the purpose, neither would a month. If a landowner had not a resident agent, or if the agent was not on the spot, or could not easily be got at, a month would not be any more security than fourteen days. The initiatory delay was the thing to be deprecated, and though no great principle was involved in the Amendment, it only showed the inclination on the part of some noble Lords to throw difficulties in the way—[Cries of "No, no."]—of passing this Bill, which was generally admitted by both sides of the House to be a most remedial measure.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, when we reach the other side of the Irish Channel, we become aware that we have to deal with Irish time. In the course of this brief conversation, we have had two striking examples of what constitutes Irish time in the minds of some noble Lords connected with that country. We were told in the first place that although this clause says that fourteen days are to be substituted for one month, yet fourteen days is in effect equivalent to six weeks. It has not been explained how, by some Procrustean process, the fourteen days can be stretched into a period of six weeks. Then came the observations of the noble and learned Lord opposite, who told us that if this Amendment was pressed, your Lordships would be standing between the labourers of Ireland and the great and undoubted advantages

  351
  which, this Bill places within their reach. The noble and learned Lord argued that there really was no difference between fourteen days and a month. That is the second illustration.
  LORD HEMPHILL:I meant practically.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Now I ask your Lordships to recollect for a moment that under the law as it now stands these notices can be served by forwarding them by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the usual or last known place of abode of the person who is to be served. Is it any wonderful or impossible assumption that there may be some cases in which these missives do not at once reach their destination? Is it not reasonable, therefore, on the part of my noble friend behind me to ask that at least one month should be allowed as the time within which an answer should be made to these notices? I ask your Lordships to recollect that this Bill— which we do not in the least desire to impede or obstruct—does nevertheless very considerably interfere with private rights. It is surely right and proper that that interference should take place under reasonable conditions, which will not be resented by the persons affected by the transaction. I must say that the suggestion of my noble friend behind me that the present term of one month should be allowed to stand, instead of being shortened to fourteen days as is proposed by the Bill, seems to me to be a very proper one, and if he goes to a division I shall certainly vote with him.
  LORD KILLANIN:thought it was pity that the House should commence their deliberations upon an Irish Bill by a difference of opinion about a comparatively small matter. Therefore, he suggested that as a settlement of the matter they should split the difference, and that the clause should be so amended as to substitute twenty-one for fourteen days.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The EARL of CREWE): My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, that this is not a matter of first-rate importance, but I am afraid I
  352
  cannot agree with him that the rough and ready method he suggested of splitting the difference is particularly applicable to this case. The reason that we are obliged to stand by the period in the Bill is that it forms part of the general principle embodied in the measure, of attempting, to accelerate the procedure under the Labourers Acts as far as we possibly can. I think my noble and learned friend was a little misunderstood when he evoked the cries from noble Lords opposite, because although we most cordially accept the assurances of the noble Marquess that he does not at all wish to obstruct the passage of this Bill, yet on the other hand some of the Amendments on the Paper would, if carried, undoubtedly have the effect of retarding the procedure under it. Relying partly on the fact which no noble Lord opposite attempted to gainsay, that there are precedents under the Public Health Acts for the precise procedure which we propose, I am afraid, if noble Lords opposite persist in the Amendment, we must take the sense of the House upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he would not have intervened in the discussion had it not been for the remark of the noble Earl, that certain Amendments had been placed on the Paper with the object of retarding the progress of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not say they had been placed on the Paper with that object, but that they would have that effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he could not agree with the noble Earl on that point. Many of his noble friends, especially those from Ireland, who had studied this question, viewed with approval the desire of the Government to provide sanitary houses for the labouring classes in Ireland, and the Government had their sincere goodwill in the efforts they were making. But in conferring benefits upon one class of the community, care should be taken that no injustice was inflicted upon another class. Undoubtedly the present Bill, unless it was very carefully

  353
  safeguarded, might be the means of inflicting great injustice upon one class while conferring benefit upon another. The noble and learned Lord for whose remarks the noble Earl had just apologised—
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Oh no; I did not apologise; on the contrary, I entirely endorsed the observations of my noble and learned friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that the noble and learned Lord had pointed out that during the time the Labourers Acts had been in operation only 17,000 cottages had been erected. It was no use denying the fact that that comparatively small number was due to the great caution of various unions indifferent parts of Ireland, but he hoped that under the new circumstances in which the occupier, on terms agreeable to himself and his landlord, would be made the owner of his holding, that number would be very largely increased. He believed that in the future the unions which had looked with a certain amount of apprehension on these Acts would adopt a more favourable view. With regard to the substitution of fourteen days for a month, he thought that when it was remembered how very dilatory some Irishmen were in negotiating their own affairs, it would be admitted that a month was a very short time. This would be the more realised if noble Lords considered the slow progress that was being made under the last Land Purchase Act. He agreed that landowners must co-operate with their agents in considering the details of these transactions, which agents were generally concerned with a large number of properties. Therefore, he thought that a month was a very short time in which to require answers to be made to the notices, and under these circumstances he was glad to hear that the Leader of he Opposition would support the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENdid not think that because a month had been allowed in all former Acts that was any particular reason why it should be included in the present Bill. The real
  354
  object of this measure was to satisfy a want which previous Acts of Parliament had left unsatisfied. It was generally admitted that one of the reasons why former Acts had been only very partial successes was the dilatory nature of the proceedings under them. If he thought that any real injustice would be done to anybody by shortening the period to fourteen days, he would vote in favour of the Amendment, but he could not think that any real injustice would be inflicted. It seemed to him that if an owner or his agent, or his solicitor, or whoever managed the property, could not be found in a fortnight, the probability was that he would never be found at all. Reference had been made to the dilatory manner in which Irishmen conducted their own business affairs. He did not altogether agree with the remark, but if landlords had been dilatory in managing their own affairs, he failed to see why the labourers should suffer for i
  THE EARL OF MAYOpointed out that there was a danger in shortening the period in question. If a limited owner was concerned, and the proceedings went forward, and the purchase money was paid to the wrong person in consequence of the proceedings being conducted in a hurry, the district council might suffer by there being brought against them an action, and by their having to pay the money to the proper person. Therefore, he thought that if there was a little less hurry in the initial stages the whole business might go through better eventually. The noble Earl the President of the Council had said that the Opposition were delaying the Bill, but the noble Lord in charge of the measure had stated that there would be more time available than the fortnight, because the inspector would take at least six weeks. He could not quite see how those two statements could be made to agree. But even if the inspector was to take six weeks, that had nothing to do with the service of the notice. The answer had to be made to the notice within fourteen days. He thought that a month was much better, and that the longer period would facilitate the carrying out of the provisions of the

  355
  notice, and also prevent the district council, in the case of a limited owner, being compelled to indulge in the luxury of a lawsuit.
  Clause 4 accordingly disagreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that it might be a convenience to their Lordships and enable the House to follow the meaning of the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, if he stated generally their bearing on the first three sub-sections of the Clause. Clause 6 was an important
  On Question whether the clause to be left out shall stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 78.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Armitstead, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and. Mount-Earl.)

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Burghelere, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Colebrooke, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman, L.

  Reay, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Chesterfield, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Shuttleworth, L

  Russell, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)[Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Joicey, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Inchiquin, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Kelvin, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kenyon, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Hill, V.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Hutchinson, V. E. Donoughmore.)

  Langford, L.

  Bath, M.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Addington, L.

  Massy, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Ampthill. L.

  Newton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Devon, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Chaworth, L. (E Meath.)

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Essex, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Haddington, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  Kilmorey, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Digby, L.

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

  Mayo, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Forester, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Ventry, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Hylton, L.

  section, and had naturally attracted a great deal of attention, and doubtless given some anxiety to the Government. The proposal was that the inspector of the Local Government Board should go down and make an examination; then having made his Report he was to have power to make a Provisional Order. He (Lord Ashbourne) did not think it wise or reasonable that the inspector's decision should be called by so important a name as a Provisional Order. That, however, was merely a

  357
  verbal point, but he thought it would be desirable, in the final form of the Bill, to give the order some less grandiose name. Then the suggestion was that the Local Government Board, if anyone was dissatisfied, should read the Report and the evidence furnished by the inspector, and decide what should be done in regard to the compulsory taking of the land involved in the case. The section dealt entirely with the question of the compulsory taking of land against the will of the owners. Up to the present there had been a much more serious method of determining these questions. It used to be by means of a Provisional Order which had to pass through Parliament, and then the Privy Council, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of some of the Judges of the High Court, dealt with the question. By this Bill it was proposed to get rid of the Privy Council and the important machinery previously in force. He did not question that proposal, because he admitted that the machinery was unnecessarily strong, and put the parties to considerable expense in bringing the persons concerned, and their witnesses, from every part of Ireland up to Dublin. Still, it was necessary to provide some kind of real appeal for the parties whose land was to be compulsorily taken against their wish. He had indicated on the Second Reading that it ought to be within the option of the parties to have their case beard before a judge. He then stated, and it was embodied in the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, that a county court judge might supply the requisite machinery. He was aware that a judge of assize had been suggested, and the point was well worth consideration, though personally he believed that the suggestion he himself had put forward was the soundest solution. It had been pointed out in another place that the judge of assize sat only twice in the year, and that, as it was desirable to enable appeals to be taken more frequently, the county court judge, who sat much oftener than the judge of assize, would form a more desirable tribunal. This would not necessitate any very great change in the substance of those proposals. All that he desired was that there should be a full appeal.
  An appeal meant that the parties should be heard, and their witnesses examined, and that the tribunal should have an opportunity of giving a decision. It was not suggested that the Local Government Board were to do any of those things, nor could they without bringing the parties and the witnesses to Dublin, and if that were to be allowed or required there was no purpose served in getting rid of the Privy Council. If the Government thought it desirable to retain the present clause, believing that some parties might be satisfied with the decision of the Local Government Board, it was not for him to say that they should not be allowed to do so, but at the same time if the parties wanted to have a judicial decision, they should have an opportunity of saying that they would not be satisfied unless a judge heard their case and decided upon both their law and their facts. Anyone could go to the Local Government Board if they were satisfied with the Board's reading of the Report and the evidence, and the making of any further inquiry they might direct. But if the parties were not satisfied with that, it was only fair and reasonable that they should have an opportunity of going to the county court judge. If the Government recognised the reasonableness of his suggestions, perhaps they would indicate how they proposed to deal with them, and he would be very glad to meet them if possible.
  LORD DENMANhoped that the suggestion he was about to make would meet with the approval, or at any rate the agreement, of noble Lords opposite. He still adhered to what he had stated on the Second Reading of the Bill with regard to the Local Government Board; the Government still thought that that would have been a cheap and quick tribunal, and one which would have decided equitably on the points brought before them. However, for the purpose of expediting the passage of the Bill, and also to avoid the suspicion that they desired to do any injustice to any class—which was very far from being the case—they were willing to go a long way to meet the views of noble Lords opposite. What they suggested was that the Local Government

  359
  Board inspector should first of all give his decision, as before, and that if a person felt himself aggrieved by the decision, he should have the alternative of himself deciding whether he should appeal to the Local Government Board or to the county court judge. He hoped that noble Lords opposite would realise that the Government had gone a long way in making that concession, and that they would be able to accept the proposal. In that case he had prepared a considerable number of Amendments which would be consequential upon the acceptance of the suggestion he had made; no useful purpose would be served by going through those Amendments at the present stage, but if it suited the convenience of the House he would move them en bloc, and they could then be printed so that on the further stage of the Bill noble Lords opposite would have an opportunity of seeing whether they went far enough to meet their views.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought that what the noble Lord had said was very reasonable, and that his proposal to move the Amendments en bloc, and have them inserted in the Bill, would be for the convenience of the House. They would then appear in the reprint of the measure, and would thus facilitate the consideration of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand the noble and learned Lord withdraws his Amendments down to line 20.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes, in favour of those to be introduced by the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord in charge of the Bill move the Amendments to which he has referred?
  LORD DENMAN: Yes.
  Amendments moved accordingly and agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNEmoved to insert at the end of sub-clause (4) of Clause 6 the words, "Unless it appears that the particular holding or estate has been selected for an indirect purpose."
  360
  He said that this Amendment was of an entirely different character from those to which he had referred in his previous remarks. The sub-section dealt with a very slender matter, and he was really at a loss to understand how it got into the Bill at all. Having taken some part in the administration of the previous Acts, he did not think the Government could have had present in their minds what had been the common action in reference to these cases. The section did very little in reference to the administration of the law, but having been inserted it might lead to grave misconception, and therefore in order to prevent any misunderstanding he thought that the words he had proposed should be added. He suggested for the consideration of the Government that it might be wiser to strike out the sub-section altogether, and if they preferred to do that rather than accept the words he had suggested, he would be quite prepared to adopt that course, and move accordingly.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 30, after the second word ' scheme,' to insert the words ' unless it appears that the particular holding or estate has been selected for an indirect purpose.' "— (Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD DENMANregretted that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. It was with the greatest diffidence that he ventured to criticise the wording of an Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, but he submitted that the words suggested were somewhat vague. It might be difficult for the court to settle a point of law if raised in connection with the words "for an indirect purpose." He pointed out further that the Amendment would introduce a new element into the clause. The sub-section provided that a scheme should not be disallowed merely on the ground that agricultural labourers were not required for the cultivation or management of the holding or estate a portion of which it was proposed to acquire for the purpose of the scheme. The Amendment introduced a proposal which could only be properly dealt with by a new clause or a new sub-section. The noble and learned Lord had suggested as an alternative that the Government might accept a new clause, but he regretted

  361
  that he was unable to agree to that proposal.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that he would be sorry to divide the House on a question which he had already indicated was of a very slender character. He did not think the sub-section made any advance in the law, and the only reason he had suggested the addition of these words was in order to prevent any misunderstanding. But as the Government's peace of mind appeared to hang very much on the retention of the subsection, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthen moved to omit Sub-clause (5), which provided that where a petition had been presented and not withdrawn and the Local Government Board were of opinion that the ground or grounds on which such petition was presented was or were frivolous or vexatious, the Board might make an order for the payment by the petitioner of the reasonable costs, charges and expenses of the district council incurred in opposing such petition, and an order respecting costs should be enforceable as if it were an order of the High Court. He pointed out that this sub-clause was not in the original Bill as introduced by the Government, and was an entire departure from previous enactments in reference to costs. Under previous Labourers Acts it was enacted that provision should be made for the payment of the costs of a person who objected in defence of his property. That was perfectly reasonable, but this sub-clause went further, and provided that anyone who presented a petition to the Local Government Board, if the Board came to the conclusion that the act was frivolous or vexatious, might be grievously amerced in costs. That was an entire reversal of the whole principle of the law in reference to these matters. If a man's land was going to be compulsorily taken, he had a perfect right to present a petition saying that he objected, and giving his reasons. The Government had already wisely accepted an Amendment enabling the person affected to have the question threshed out before a County
  362
  Court Judge. The County Court Judge would deal with the costs at the hearing before himself. This provision, however, suggested that the Local Government Board should deal with the costs. But there would not be one farthing of costs incurred before the Local Government Board, because they would not see the parties or examine the witnesses; there was no hearing at all, and there was nothing in regard to which costs could be incurred. A report was sent up to the Board by their own Inspector, together with the evidence given before him, and then, in some back room of the Customs House, they came to their decision as to what should be done. The sub-section was an entire departure from all previous enactments in inference to the compulsory taking of land, and therefore he hoped the Government would accede to his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out sub-section (5)." — (Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The argument that the noble and learned Lord has presented certainly deserves some consideration, and if he will agree to let the question stand over until the Report stage, I will ask my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary if he can see his way to meet the noble Lord's wishes.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that the noble Earl had views as to rapidity. He himself was a much more tranquil person, but with a view to rapidity he thought it would be better for the noble Earl to agree to the Amendment, omitting the sub-section, and consider between then and the Report stage whether he would give notice to replace it. That would lead to both speed and accuracy.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am quite willing to adopt that course.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  LORD KILLANINmoved to insert the words "with the concurrence of the

  363
  county council," so that in cases where a district council had neglected to make an adequate improvement scheme under the Act, the concurrence of the county council should be necessary before the Local Government Board could require the district council to make and carry out such a scheme. He thought that the clause as it stood gave a very large power to the Local Government Board, and enabled them practically to take the law completely into their own hands, and to act in a very peremptory way, wholly regardless of local feeling. Under the clause as it stood, where a district council had refused to take action, or to carry out an improvement scheme, the Local Government Board, without consulting any other local authority, were to be allowed to take the place of the district council. He was aware that in the past some district councils had been very backward in undertaking improvement schemes which they ought to have undertaken, and this Bill had been brought in to remedy that. In many cases the reason why improvement schemes had not been undertaken was that previous Labourers Acts had been very inefficient and very expensive. Under the present Bill, however, if a district council refused to undertake an improvement scheme, he thought it would be clear that they must be in the wrong, and he was all in favour of the Local Government Board initiating proceedings. But his proposal was that before they actually took the law into their own hands, and wholly disregarded all local feeling, and possibly acted in spite of local feeling, so far as they had an opportunity of testing it through the district council, the matter should be laid before the county council. Having served on his own county council since its inauguration, he had no doubt that if an improvement scheme were brought before the county council, it would be adopted, and its adoption by the council would make the measure more popular, and it would not have the appearance of having been forced on the locality by the Local Government Board regardless of local feeling. Moreover, if the scheme had the concurrence of the county council, it would put to shame the district council and would act as an incentive to make the district council undertake such a
  364
  scheme. It might be said that the county council had not much connection with this matter, but from the very next clause it would be seen that the county council was intimately concerned in the matter of funds. The county councils were very important bodies, and much more responsible than the district councils, and if their concurrence was obtained a scheme would probably be carried out much more amicably and in a less peremptory manner.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 5, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' with the concurrence of the county council.' "—(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that there was not much likelihood of the Local Government Board either overriding local opinion or acting in a peremptory manner in this matter. The county councils had nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Labourers Acts; in fact, throughout the Bill the term "county council" was scarcely mentioned except in connection with money grants.
  LORD KILLANIN: That is a very important question.
  LORD DENMANagreed that it was important, but it was purely a bookkeeping transaction. The county councils had no training such as would qualify them for administering or for interfering in any way with the Labourers Acts. The clause enabled the Local Government Board, where the district council had neglected their duty, to compel them to erect cottages. He understood that in some parts of Ireland hitherto the district councils had not fulfilled their duties very well in these respects, and it was very necessary to give the Local Government Board the powers suggested in this clause. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:—
  LORD DUNBOYNE, who had placed on the Paper a series of Amendments to Clause 11, said he understood that in an amended form the Government were prepared to accept them. By inadvertence he had omitted, to give notice of an Amendment to Sub-section (3), but possibly if he called, attention to it the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would himself amend the clause. Sub-section (3) provided that a memorandum of the amount paid under Sub-section (2) should be endorsed on the instrument creating the mortgage or charge. In many cases that would be absolutely impossible, because charges were often created by will or deeds which were not in the possession of the person for whose benefit the charge was made; therefore ho would be unable to produce the document to have a memorandum endorsed upon it. The sub-section as it stood was mandatory, and he suggested either that it should be omitted altogether, as it was really unnecessary, or that the words "when practicable" should, be inserted. With regard to the other Amendments of which he had given notice, he was willing to move them in the terms which had been suggested to him. If the Amendments were accepted, Sub-section (2) would become a proviso of Sub-section (1), and would provide that "the amount of the compensation may, if he consents, be paid to the person entitled to the mortgage; '' Sub-section (3) would be omitted altogether or the words "when practicable "Inserted; and after Sub-section 4 the following new sub-section would be inserted:" A copy of the receipt should on the request of any persons entitled to any estate or interest in the land in respect of which the purchase money or compensation is paid be furnished by the council at their expense to that person." By the permission of the House he would move the Amendments in that form.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would move the Amendments one by one.
  LORD ASHBOURNEpointed out that the procedure suggested by the noble Lord, (Lord Dunboyne), would be somewhat confusing, inasmuch as the Amendments now suggested were Amendments of other Amendments on the Paper, and the House had really nothing to go upon. He understood that the noble Lord who moved the Amendments and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had had some conversation on the matter. The clause dealt with an extremely technical though not very large question, and he could quite understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had consulted with the draughtsman as to the particular phraseology he would wish to employ. Under these circumstances, he suggested that the Amendments should be put in a connected form and incorporated in the Bill so that the House might see them in print to-morrow.
  LORD DENMANsaid the clause dealt with some extremely technical matters, and he was glad the Government had been able to come to an agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne. As to the omission of sub-section (3), no notice had been given of the proposal, and he would prefer to leave it to a later stage of the Bill. As to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, he had given Lord Dunboyne a copy of the agreed clause, and doubtless the noble Lord would be willing to read it in a connected form.
  LORD DUNBOYNEthought the best plan would be for him to put the Amendments into writing and move them on Report.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the most convenient course would be for the noble Lord to hand in his Amendments; they could then be inserted pro forma, and would appear in the reprint of the Bill.
  Amendments moved accordingly, and agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What has become of sub-section (3)?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: It is still in the Bill, as far as I am aware.
  *LORD CLONBROCKin moving the omission of sub-section (9) said it was a decidedly unusual course to fetter the discretion of an arbitrator in determining the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of a purchase being decided upon. It was true that, since the properties to be acquired were small, the amounts of compensation awarded would also be small, and the difference whether compulsion was taken into account or not comparatively insignificant, but it would set up a most dangerous precedent in regard to land in Ireland. This was especially the case, since from a statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in describing the Commission he proposed to appoint to inquire into congestion, it appeared decidedly probable that the taking of land compulsorily on a much larger scale for the purpose of relieving congestion was in contemplation. Under these circumstances the sub-clause would afford a most dangerous precedent, and he moved its omission.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out sub-clause 9."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  THE EARL OF ARRANsaid that the question raised by this sub-clause was dealt with by several noble Lords in the Second Reading debate, and great emphasis was then laid upon the fact that it would set up a very dangerous precedent; it was also stated that the principle involved, whether good or bad, was of too far reaching a character to be properly argued on the minor subject to which it was here applied. In Ireland the question of compulsory purchase was in the air not only in regard to sites for labourers' cottages, but also in connection with whole estates. Though the question of compulsory purchase might be a bad or a good thing, it should at any rate be argued from the extreme possibilities which it might engender. As had been pointed out a precedent had been created under the Labourers Allotment Act in England, and all those interested in Ireland would be grateful for this kindly warning, because if this principle had been brought in in another Bill which dealt with it in a small way, it was right and proper
  368
  that the precedent should be checked in order that it might be dealt with, upon a larger and more general basis. He sincerely hoped the Government would agree to his noble friend's Amendment and if they did not he hoped it would be pressed to a division.
  LORD DENMANsaid this Amendment dealt with a small matter and with small plots of land. The Earl of Arran had mentioned that they had a precedent for this proposal in the Local Government Act 1894 in England, and His Majesty's Government could not see why the precedent should not be followed in the particular case. If the noble Lord pressed his Amendment, as he believed was his intention, the Government would be forced to go to a division.
  LORD CLONBROCKcalled the attention of the House to sub-clause (3) of Clause 10 of the Act of 1894 which provided that—
  "the arbitrator, in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the land and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner during the term of hiring, and any depreciations of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council."
  In that case any loss to the owner, apart from the value of the land compulsorily taken, was allowed for. No provision of that kind occurred in the Bill before the House. He could not, therefore, consider it as a real precedent, and he further objected to a precedent being drawn from what appeared in an English Act. They had often, in pleading fair play and justice to Irish landlords, urged comparisons between their position and the position of the English landlords. In such case they had been invariably told that the condition of the two countries was so different that no comparison could be instituted. Now they were told that an English precedent must be followed. It came, therefore, to this: that in anything favourable to the landowners' interest, the eases were completely different, but in anything detrimental to that interest they were absolutely parallel. He did not know how this provision had got into the Act of 1894. As it referred only to small areas it probably slipped in

  369
  without being noticed, and at the time did not attract much interest as a precedent, because at that period there was no prospect of a Labourers Act being introduced into this country. He believed there was such a prospect now, judging from what had fallen from the President of the Local Government Board, and he would commend that to the attention of noble Lords who were not connected with Ireland. He thought this was a most dangerous precedent to introduce into the question of Irish land, and he should therefore press his Motion to leave out this sub-section.
  *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHsaid that from the humble standpoint of an English Member he should like to endorse what had been said about the dangerous nature of this precedent. They were now discussing an Irish Bill, and one that related entirely to Irish affairs. As had just been said by the noble Lord who represented the Government this was a very small matter and dealt only with a small area. He wished to point out, however, that that was a very dangerous argument, and such precedents had sometimes been pushed to very extreme limits. It seemed to him that in modern legislation the great danger was that of establishing precedents upon small issues. Sometimes they were established in Private Bill legislation, and it was quite possible that in this way they might find them in an Irish Bill. The House was aware that there was very considerable negotiations in regard to private legislation in this House where vast quantities of property were taken for railways and public improvements. He did not, however, think there was any precedent for saying that an arbitrator should be absolutely forbidden from giving any allowance for compulsory purchase. It might be that sometimes he had been given a discretion under the particular circumstances, but he thought he was right in saying that the general law imposed no restriction upon an arbitrator in determining whether he would allow anything for compulsory purchase and what it should be. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would be supported by the House. However small the pre-
  370
  cedent might be now it was likely to lead to serious and complicated results which were not apparent at the present moment.
  LORD HEMPHILLsaid that on the merits of the case he would ask noble Lords opposite why the landlord or owner should not be satisfied with the actual value of the land taken; he did not see why this artificial bonus should be added. Some of their Lordships at all events were aware that this practice of giving 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase in regard to the compensation given by arbitrators and by juries when a railway company took land, had gradually crept in by degrees, and some years ago in Ireland the judges used to tell the jury that they were not bound to give the 10 per cent. But the practice arose; and latterly in charging juries, although there was no statutory authority for adding this 10 per cent. the judges were in the habit of telling juries that they would be at liberty to take into account the circumstance that the owner of the land was not a free agent, but that the land was taken from them by the force of the Act of Parliament. But apart from that, the ordinary man did not appear to realise that the acre or half acre of land that was taken for a labourer's cottage in point of fact was only worth about £30 in the market, and why should the labourer be called upon to pay £3 more in order to give the landord £33, the £3 being imposed as a sort of punishment for the local authority taking the land, or as a bonus to the selling landlord? He would much prefer that this question should be considered on its own merits, and not with reference to the precedent which was so very aptly referred to by the noble Lord on the Ministerial bench. He was rather astonished to hear the noble Lord from the cross benches use the argument that because in the distant future a very large question might arise namely, as to whether land should be taken by compulsion under the Land Purchase Acts from the landlords, that in anticipation of that question they should now do what was unjust in dealing with this very small and paltry matter of the labourers cottages. It would be sufficient to deal with that

  371
  question whenever it arose, and it would be a very bad argument to refer to what had been done in this particular Act of Parliament on public, local and imperial grounds, and upon grounds of humanity to lift the labourers in Ireland from the slough of despond in which they were at the present time. He could assure their Lordships from considerable experience in Ireland, that there was no question in which the masses were more vitally interested than this attempt to facilitate the provision of cottages for labourers. This Bill would not go very far assuming that it became law to-morrow. There was no question in which the people of Ireland were more vitally interested. All noble Lords who had had any experience of Ireland knew perfectly well that some of these habitations of the labourers in every part of Ireland, and more especially in the south and west, were very little better than pigsties.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid he had never said a word about this 10 per cent.; all he said was that the arbitrator should not be fettered in cases where he thought he should give more. He wished to remind the House that this was not a question affecting only the landlords, because very often the tenant on whose land the cottage was going to be erected would suffer very severely by it; the value of his farm would be reduced, and he might also surfer great inconvenience in other ways. Under this Amendment compensation would be paid to him as well as to the landlord. It was true that it was a small case, and was not a matter of great imporance in this particular instance, but it nevertheless required attention.
  LORD DUNRAVENassured the House that this Amendment was not going to make any material difference to the labouring population in Ireland. He ventured to say that there was a sound common-sense reason why arbitrators should be allowed to make an additional allowance where land was taken compulsorily. If they compelled a man to sell land, or to sell anything else, they put him to considerable inconvenience and expense in finding some other investment for his money; therefore, if a man was
  372
  an unwilling seller, it was not unreasonable that an arbitrator should have an opportunity of giving him something in addition, in order to compensate the owner for the time and trouble and expense which he would be put to in finding some other investment.
  THE EARL OF ARRANthought that many of the arguments which had been brought forward upon this subject would be more appropriate when the question was brought up upon a larger basis. Sufficient attention had not, in his opinion, been called to this very large principle, and it was entirely wrong that such a principle should be allowed to worm its way by a sort of back-door process into legislation of this kind instead of being properly fought out.
  LORD JOICEYsaid he happened to be a Member of the House of Commons when the Act of 1894 was passed. That Act was only passed after a very close and difficult discussion, and the House of Commons came to the conclusion hat it was desirable in dealing with very small holdings that such a charge as this should not be put upon the land. The case was very similar here, and he could not see why the House should not accept this proposal when it was an accepted principle already in regard to English legislation. There was a great similarity in dealing with the very poorest cottagers of Ireland and the very poor agricultural tenants of England. He did not think there was any argument which could be used in this House which ought to induce their Lordships to depart from the principle which had been already laid down in the Act of 1894.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It has been suggested that this question should be dealt with in reference to the merits of the case rather than in regard to precedents. I should like to ask upon the merits of the case why the court is to be precluded from allowing any addition to the purchase money in consideration of the fact that the transaction is a compulsory one. The noble and learned Lord told us that the value of these holdings was about £30 an acre, but I do not know what reason there is why the

  373
  owner should be compelled to sell a single acre at the pro rata price of the whole. Surely it is fair in a case of this kind to take into consideration the fact that the owner is compelled to sell, not the whole of his property, but a fraction of it, which may from his point of view be very inconveniently situated. There might be a most inconvenient severance, and the use and amenities of the rest of the holdings may be very considerably interfered with by the appropriation of a small part of it. Why, under these conditions, are we to say that in no circumstances is there to be any addition made on the ground of compulsion? I should like to remind your Lordships that this principle is not unknown to us in English legislation. In our earlier Land Acts it was enacted that if a tenant was compulsorily deprived of his holding by his landlord, that tenant should receive compensation for disturbance. That is the same principle, and unless I am very much mistaken, a Bill which is now before Parliament which has received a great deal of approval from His Majesty's Government, contains a recognition of the same principle in a very emphatic form. Just one word as to precedent. Many speakers have relied upon the alleged precedent of the Local Government Act of 1894. As Lord Cronbrock has already pointed out to the House, that Act contains this most important qualification, and I will read it again to the House—
  "the arbitrator, in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the land, and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner during the term of hiring, and any depreciation of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding, caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council."
  That is the principle for which my noble friends are contending, and I would say that if the Government really are determined to resist the Amendment of my noble friend, I hope, at any rate, that they will agree to some other words which will be upon all-fours with the words of the English Act.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The, debate on this Amendment has been devoted to two entirely different subjects. In the first place, it has been devoted to the
  374
  question of how far precedents are being followed, and on the other hand, to how far the words in the Bill are justified by the precise merits of the case. As regards the precedent of the Act of 1894, although I think it is of considerable value in coming to a determination on this question, it is by no means the only consideration which affected the Government in introducing this provision into the Bill. The noble Marquis who spoke last I think somewhat overstated the effect of the qualification which exists in that Bill. In speaking of the damage which the landlord was likely to sustain, he used the word "severance." Now there is nothing whatever that I am aware of in this Bill to prevent extra compensation being given on grounds of severance by the arbitrator. The case is similar in regard to other indirect damage which may be sustained, and it is simply on this one question of 10 per cent. in relation to compulsory purchase that the, precedent of the Act of 1894 is followed. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, based his argument in favour of this Amendment on the circumstance that the vendor under this Act must always be taken to be an unwilling seller. I should think in a large proportion of instances that is by no means the case. In many cases the sale is a great advantage to the estate, and if some extra payment is to be made on account of the alleged compulsion, I confess I am not able to understand the reason for it. There is no doubt that this ten per cent, has been put on in certain cases, and it is very familiar to all those of your Lordships who sit in the Committee rooms upstairs. It does not, however, possess the sanctity of the Ten Commandments, and in this country it has been very much abused. I believe there have been many instances where the ten per cent. has been given as a mere matter of form, where no compensation was morally claimable on the grounds of compulsory acquisition. Under these circumstances I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, and we must divide the House against it.
  LORD LONDONDERRYsaid the noble Earl had not proved that there was anything of the kind referred to in the Bill

  375
  which he was asking the House to accept. He reminded the House that under the various Bills which had been passed, the land had passed into the possession of occupiers, and in taking the course they were adopting that night they were defending those who had recently purchased their holdings, and were declining to allow them to have taken from them compulsorily their land which they had just acquired on favourable terms under the Purchase Acts. He ventured to say that those who were taking advantage of the principles of the Bill two or three years ago, were anxiously waiting for the time to come when they would become owners of their holdings, and they would look forward with great dismay at having signed agreements and afterwards finding that before they had actually acquired their holdings, it was possible that portions of them might be taken from them for the purpose of labourers cottages. Therefore, in taking the action they did that night, the Opposition were guarding the interests of those who were to be the future owners of the land which they occupied. It was all very well to say that 10 per cent. had not always been the custom in Ireland. It always had been the custom, and it had been an under-tood thing, and if that was so, and if it had been so for years past, and had been recognised not as one of the Ten Commandmants, but as an unwritten law why was the arbitrator to be arbitrarily forbidden from giving what he thought was right in the case of disputes in order to recoup those whose land was compulsorily taken from them. He believed that everybody regretted parting with their land, and he thought the landowners of Ireland in acquiescing in the sale of their land as they had done had taken that course because they
  thought it was in the interests of the country, and the sacrifices they had made were extremely great. When they were told that they were to introduce still more compulsory taking of land than at present existed, he must utterly decline to associate himself with any measure which would have such an effect. He trusted the day was far distant when they would see the principle of the compulsory sale of land extended throughout Ireland, and it would always be quoted to their discredit if they allowed a clause such as this to pass without criticism, or without showing their disapproval of it. Those who held land in Ireland would regret it in the future if they allowed this proposal to become law.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the noble Lord had rather suggested that by this Amendment they were claiming something that was unfair. He said that whatever percentage was given would only be given in cases of compulsory purchase, and that hundreds of cases would not be compulsory at all. Not one single case that was not compulsory would come under the proposal which this Amendment put forward. Therefore he claimed that the' custom would not apply. He wished to enforce what had been said before, that they were not asking for 10 per cent. and they were not asking for anything except that the arbitrators should be allowed to judge whether something should be given or not. He did not think that that was an unreasonable thing at al to ask for.
  On Question, whether the sub-section proposed to be left out stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; not-contents, 86.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Crewe, E, (L. President.)

  Armitstead. L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Colebrooke, E.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Reay, L.

  Denman, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Beauchamp, E.

  Eversley, E.

  Sandhurst, E.

  Carrington, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Sefton, E. (E. Sefton.)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Granard, E. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, E.

  Russell, E.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hemphill, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Goschen, V.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Wellington, D.

  Hill, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

  Kenyon, L.

  Bath, M.

  Killanin, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Cairns, E.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Langford, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Addington, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Massy, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Devon, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Newton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Barnard, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Pousonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Drogheda, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Eldon, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Essex, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Deramore, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Mayo, E. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Munster, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Onslow, E.

  Forester, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

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

  Rosse, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Hatherton, L.

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

  Waldegrave, E,

  Hylton, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Churchill, V.

  Kelvin, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he considered that sub-clause 11 was more iniquitous than the one which had just been thrown out. The sub-clause as it stood would work as follows: They would sell a plot of land, and it would be taken from them compulsorily, the price would be fixed, and then when the whole thing had gone through the ordinary official channels, the money would be paid into Court and it would then be the duty of the vendor to get that money out of the Court after proving title. He would not, however, get his costs from the district council, or at any rate, he could not get more of his costs from the district council than £10. He thought that was an iniquitous proposal. They might be told that this was a very small transaction, and that the district council in the public interest ought not to be allowed to spend more than £10 in costs. It would, however, cost a vendor very much more, because he would have to prove title in regard to that one part of his estate, and he would have to prove title every time one of those small plots was sold. He could net understand from what motive of justice this provision had been put into the Bill. He had obtained a couple
  378
  of opinions from distinguished lawyers in Dublin upon this point, and one of them, Mr. Connor, K.C., said he considered that this limitation of costs was absolutely unjust, because it cost just as much to prove title for £100 as it did for 10s. Surely, if land was to be taken compulsorily, the least that could be done was to see that the owner was indemnified as to costs. If the owner had to spend perhaps £150 in order to get £100 out of Court, that was an absolute denial of justice. The other opinion went to show that it was utterly impossible that the costs in these cases would not exceed £10. The only possible result of this sub-clause, as far as he could see, would be, that there would be numbers of small sums paid into Court, and it would not be worth the while of landowners to pay the costs. He did not ask that the whole costs should always be paid to the vendor, but he did not think he would be acting unreasonably by asking that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Court.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 41, after the word ' pounds,' to insert ' unless the Court shall otherwise order.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that a similar Amendment was moved in another place and refused, and therefore it was only consistent that he should raise some objection, to it now. He did so more particularly on the grounds that he had stated before, namely, that the whole object of this Bill was to reduce the expense of these proceedings. What would happen was that the district councils would be mulcted in considerable sums when they might not have been at any great fault in the matter, and it was because the Government wanted to reduce the expenditure that they could not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord in this case. It was not a matter to which the Government attached any very great importance, but at the same time he respectfully asked the noble Lord not to press this particular Amendment upon the House.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid his case for pressing this Amendment was furnished by the speech which had just been delivered. The object of this clause, it was claimed, was to make it cheaper for the district councils, and the extra cost over £10 was to come out of the landlord's pocket. That was a great injustice, and he should certainly press the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not surprised that the noble Earl presses this Amendment, and we shall not resist it. I may say, however, that so far as I was concerned, I was not greatly impressed by the authority of the two distinguished gentlemen whose opinions the noble Earl read to the House. They were the opinions of two gentlemen belonging to the legal profession, and I think the House will agree with me that that argument, coming from the source it did, is not a very strong one, because the desire and temptation to cheapen this kind of procedure appeals less to the legal profession than to any other. We will not, however, resist the noble Earl's Amendment.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid the object of the new clause he proposed was to provide that a person should be disqualified for being elected a member of the district council if he was the tenant to that council in respect of a cottage on any land provided under the Labourers Acts. He thought their Lordships would readily see that it was necessary to introduce a disqualification of this kind, because such a case had arisen. He begged to move the new clause standing in his name.
  New clause—
  " A person shall lie disqualified for being elected, or chosen, or being a member of a district council if he is the tenant to that council of a cottage or any land provided under the Labourers Acts. If any such person shall become such tenant when a member of any such council his seat shall be, ipso facto, vacated."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Brought up and read la
  Moved, "That the clause be read 2a."
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government were not in a position to accept this Amendment because there did not appear to be any precedent for it. They had, during the debate, been frequently warned of the danger of accepting proposals without precedents, but the noble Lord by this Amendment would be creating a precedent.
  LORD DUNRAVENsaid it would disqualify the whole countryside.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid that under the circumstances he would not press his Amendment.
  New clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  LORD MAYOsaid that this clause provided that the Lord Chancellor's salary was to be reduced by £3,000. He wished to ask the Government if any arrangement had been made for this under the financial provisions of this Bill. The sum might be put upon

  381
  the Development Grant, and he should like to know therefore that this sum had been secured for the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid he understood that one of the judgeships had already been suspended. It was £3,000 a year. Another would be suspended shortly, and the Lord Chancellor's salary would be reduced by £2,000 or £3,000. He understood that the assent of the Lord Chancellor had already been obtained to the reduction. He did not think there was any fear whatever of the sum in question coming out of the Irish Development Grant.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clauses 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18:—
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid there was annually paid in Ireland £36,811, called the Exchequer contribution, in aid of the cost of building labourers cottages. Under that grant £2,466 was paid to Antrim, £2,026 to county Down, £1,074 to county Armagh, and £811 to County Fermanagh. He did not think those four counties had taken advantage of the grants allotted to them, but it was rather hard upon them now by this Bill to deduct £6,000 a year from the grant it was proposed to distribute. To a certain extent the counties had only themselves to blame, but, knowing that part of Ireland very well from experience, he thought these counties ought not to be thus deprived under a Bill which was intended to benefit the labourers. Undoubtedly agriculture in that part of Ulster was being steadily developed. Farming there was of an extremely high class, and he thought it would be an improvement if the labourers were given the advantages intended for them. If the noble Lord responsible for the measure would consider the question before it came up on report and consider how these counties were going to be deprived in the future, he would be perfectly satisfied.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he was afraid he could not give an answer to the noble Marquses which would be con-
  382
  sidered satisfactory. All attempts to alter the financial provisions of the Bill in any way would really be fatal to it. This matter was discussed at full length by Lord Dunraven upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was generally admitted that the Government, in adopting such a form of allocation, had done their best to arrive at an equitable solution of the question. As matters now stood, the residue of the exchequer contribution was divided between the different counties in proportion to their shares of the Irish Probate Grant. That depended upon the extent of roads in the area, a fact which clearly could have no bearing upon the question of the provision of labourers' houses. It certainly did seem generally equitable that, in considering how the provision was to be divided in the future, some account should be taken, in allowing cottages to be built on a cheaper scale, of the previous operations of such counties as had already built them. If that were not done there would be a marked injustice to counties which had gone to considerable expense, which after all could not be recouped. It was generally agreed that they could not devote any portion of this grant to recouping counties which had built in the past. The only way in which they could be recouped was by the plan in the clause under consideration. When the noble Lord said this was hard upon the four counties, he dared to say that it might be in a sense. They had very large arrears to make up, and it was possible that fewer cottages might be built there than otherwise, but on the other hand, they would under the Bill get the full benefit of the extremely reasonable terms which it provided, and he therefore hoped that there would not be much reason for the labourers in those counties to suffer any real detriment by the allocation proposed.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the noble Earl talked about counties being recouped, but there was no question in his mind about their being recouped. He understood that, owing to a smaller number of cottages being built in Ulster and elsewhere, that the greater part of the grant would be taken away. Antrim,

  383
  instead of receiving £2,466, would receive about £400; County Down, instead of receiving £2,206, about £300, and he believed that the other counties would receive sums reduced in proportion. It was not a question of recouping them, but one of their receiving so much less.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid that, when he spoke of recouping, he spoke of recouping those counties which had already built cottages, and not of the four counties in question. They could not be recouped. They were being deprived of a certain share of their grant.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19:—
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREproposed to leave out the words "or by a son of any such labourer"In line 35 on page 10. The inclusion of those words in the clause could, to his mind, only have two results. They would enable labourers—and they were cute enough to find out very quickly how—to avoid the proviso which followed at the end of the clause which was put in in another place by His Majesty's Government. All the labourer had to do was to give up his tenancy to his son. There was a far more serious result which the retention of the words might have. It might result in a lot of people getting the benefit of the Acts who were not agricultural labourers at all, and that was not the object of the Labourers Act. The local postman, the attendant at the local workhouse, or the artisan working in the town close by might say he wanted the benefits of the section because he was the son of a labourer. Thus they would have a large increase of uneconomic holdings without the compensating advantage of getting labourers back to the land. He hoped the Government would sec their way to take the words out of the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 35, to leave out the words ' or by the son of any such labourer.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid the words should stand as they appeared in the Bill.
  384
  There were instances where labourers might be old and beyond work, and where their sons would have to work for them; it was rather hard to say that they should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It was not a matter of great importance, however, and they had no intention of dividing the House upon it. Still, he hoped the noble Earl would allow the clause to remain as it stood.
  EARL DONOUGHMORE: I would rather have it out.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry to see the noble Earl is not more devoted to the hereditary principle.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I apologise to the noble Earl for becoming a Radical.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he now wished to ask their Lordships to put back in the Bill a provision originally included. The provision read—
  " And that the applicant has paid all rent due by him in respect of such tenancy."
  He thought it was reasonable to say that a man should not receive the benefits of the clause unless he had paid his rent up to date like an honest man. He found some difficulty in imagining why the words were struck out. It had been put before him that the landlord would look after himself, but he did not think that His Majesty's Government would be moved by such a motive. He thought such a case necessitated the inclusion of the words which were originally in the Bill, and he therefore begged to move that they be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 37, after the word ' made to insert the words ' and that the applicant has paid all rent due by him in respect of such tenancy.' "—(The, Earl of Donoughmore.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he did not propose to resist the action of the noble Lord in the matter, though he did not think the clause, as it stood, by any means unreasonable.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24:—
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid that Clause 24 was an extraordinary one. Some 25,000 cottages were proposed to be built and placed on portions of land to be taken from various estates, and in them were to be placed labourers not necessarily from the estate on which they stood. These labourers were to be given the right to cut turf on the estate on which their cottages stood. The estate might mean 20,000 or 30,000 acres, and a part of it might be miles away from the cottage, and yet the labourer was to be given the right to go and cut turf without asking the landlord's or anybody's leave. The tenants had to ask the landlord's sanction unless the right was part of their agreement when they took over the tenancy. The clause gave the tenant of every district cottage the right to cut turf on the estate on which the cottage happened to stand. Surely that must be a mistake. It had certainly been put into the Bill without consideration. A great many bogs in Ireland were small, and there was already barely sufficient to support the cottagers in them, yet they were giving these thousands of additional men the right to cut. The Amendment he had put down on the Paper left it open to the owners to give permission. He was told that some mistake had been made, and that the clause only referred to estates bought under the Land Purchase Act. If that was so, neither the clause nor the Bill said anything about it. As the Bill stood, it was the most bare-faced robbery that he had ever seen. It was merely taking the bog and giving it to an outside man, whom the owner had not placed on his land and whom probably he did not want. It seemed to him a most unfair proceeding altogether, and he was strongly opposed to it unless some explanation could be given. It would only make the clause exceedingly involved, and would involve Amendments further on to make it apply only to estates bought under the Land Purchase Act. He hoped the Government would see their way to make some alteration to meet the case.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 39, after ' Council ' insert ' Provided that the owner of the estate has
  386
  consented to his being so deemed."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he hoped to be able to meet the case by the insertion of the words—
  "In cases of estates sold under the Land Purchase Act."
  LORD INCHIQUIN: That will require an addition as well, and I prefer practically the same words placed at the commencement of the Clause.
  LORD DENMAN: As we are all agreed upon the principle, could we not settle it at a later stage to-morrow?
  LORD INCHIQUIN: It will require a further Amendment after the word "allotment." You will have to put in "on such estate." Perhaps the noble Lord will redraft the whole thing.
  LORD DENMAN: I will undertake to do so.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he was not sure that the Government had any clear idea in their own mind as to what was meant. Where was the turf to come from and who owned it? He could quite understand that a man wanted turf to light his fire, and everyone wanted to give it him, but he wanted to know the meaning of the clause as it stood. Who was the owner of the property in which the turbary was to be found? It was certainly not the District Council, which had only bought an acre of land. It must therefore be the proprietor of the surrounding property. His noble friend said it was reasonable to give the owner of the surrounding property whose turf it was proposed to take an opportunity of looking in and saying whether he agreed. It was a reasonable proposal made in no spirit of hostility to any poor labourer getting turf.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he gathered that the noble Lord was satisfied with the Government's proposal.
  LORD INCHIQUIN:Not entirely.
  *THE EARL OP CREWEsaid that provision was made whereby the tenant of the district council would be able to get

  387
  his share of whatever turf was going on the estate; but if the landlord sold direct to the tenant he could make such arrangements as he pleased.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he was not sure that he had made his meaning clear. He was afraid that there was no clear idea underlying the cunning hands of the draftsman when he put in these five lines. He could understand that if the district council became the owners of the estate, they got not only the cottage and the acre of land, but the turbary as their own property; but that was not the question. The clause only dealt with the narrow case of the district council having acquired the cottage and the acre of land, and they suggested that somebody was to provide that acre of land and the turbary. His noble friend did not object to the benevolence of the idea, but he wanted the owner to have a look in before it was decided.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid that a man, on selling his property, including turbary to his tenants, might keep a large portion of a bog in his own hands, for snipe shooting and other purposes. It ought to be made clear that the tenant of a labourers cottage should not have the right to go and cut turf there.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Might we have the exact words of the Government's proposal?
  LORD DENMAN: May I bring them up on Report?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that when a certain amount of turbary went to a certain amount of holding, a portion of that holding was taken for the labourer with a portion of turbary. He did not know whether that was the idea of the Bill, but it seemed to him a rather sensible idea.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE:I understand the noble Lord withdraws?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he did not think it would do the Government any harm to consider the Amendment and see if they could not make the clause better on Report.
  LORD BARRYMOREsaid that the simplest and most natural way would be to cut the clause out altogether for the present and to bring up a new clause on report so that they could understand and agree to it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have said all the time that we will accept the Amendment.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I am not quite satisfied.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord is not satisfied with his own Amendment.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I am quite willing to accept it for the time being and to have the clause re-drafted. The clause is a bad one. I have consulted two or three legal minds, and they are unable to understand it.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid it was a question of bringing meaning out of obscure words. His noble friend washed, to bring some order out of chaos. His Amendment did that, and, if it did not quite carry out the view of the Government, they could look at it and suggest further words.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That is just the course we propose.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25:
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that under Section 3 of the Labourers Act (Ireland) 1886, no site could be taken compulsorily unless land immediately adjoined or was accessible from an existing road. There were hundreds of farms throughout the country that were not accessible from the public roads, and of course it was not fair to cut them out of the Bill. He hardly thought it would be fair to leave the words "over which a public or private right of way exists." because that might mean only a footpath. He thought his Amendment to add the words '' for carts and other vehicles" would be

  389
  perfectly fair. It would be a great injustice to a farmer to have labourers cottages put right inside the farm a long way from the high road and where there was no right of way except for a footpath, and if the words he proposed were added, it would make it much easier and save disagreements, fights, and most likely broken heads.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 5, after the word ' exists' to insert the words 'for carts and other vehicles.' "—(The Earl of Mayo).
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government recognised the fairness of what the noble Lord had said, and they would be glad to accept the Amendment.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped the Government would view favourably the new clause he had down on the Paper. They did not want a survey or any elaborate paraphernalia. What they wanted was either a sheet of the Ordnance Map with a red mark showing where it was proposed that the cottage should be or a tracing of the map. A rough plan would enable them to see where it was proposed that the site should be taken and would save them going to the Union; which was very often a considerable distance from the agent's office. It would save time, and he hoped the Government would give them the provision which would considerably oil the wheels of the Bill.
  New Clause—
  "the notice of any proposed scheme served upon the owner or occupier of any land proposed to be taken otherwise than by agreement shall have attached thereto a map or plan, sufficient to enable the person so served to identify the portion of land proposed to be so taken.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  Brought up, and read 1a.
  Moved, That the Clause be read 2a."
  LORD DENMANsaid it was possible the proposal might add a certain amount
  390
  to the cost, but it was a matter of no great moment; and the Government would be prepared to accept the clause.
  Clause read 2a and added to the Bill.
  Clause 28: —
  LORD KILLANINproposed to leave out sub-section (2). He said that the first sub-section of the clause provided that the district council should make regulations with respect to the letting of cottages and allotments under the Labourers Acts and for preventing any undue preference in the letting thereof, and generally for carrying the provision of such Acts into effect. The second subsection went on to say that preference should be given to agricultural labourers who had signed on their own behalf the representation on which the scheme was founded, or on whose behalf that representation was made. He could not see, even if there was some merit in the proposal, why Parliament should take upon itself to tell the district council whom to prefer. What did Parliament know about the circumstances of the case or the character of the applicants? As the section stood a man of the very worst character in the district might receive preference. The matter should be left to the discretion of the district councils. His Amendment was decidedly on the Liberal side, and ho therefore hoped the Government would accept it. If they did not, he would not press it.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out sub-section (2)." —(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. He was informed that the sub-section was most essential to the working of the Bill. It was framed for the purpose of enabling those labourers who really needed them to get cottages, and he hoped, as the Government had conceded a good deal, the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30:—
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought there would be no controversy about the small Amendments he had put down on the Paper to Clause 30. The clause enabled the Local Government Board to make regulations. He did not object; but he wished to insert words to provide against any complaint concerning anything in the numerous clauses.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 13, line 18, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' subject to the provisions ' of this Act,'; In page 13, line 20, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' the Local Government Board, after consultation with the President of the Incorporated Law Society, may make rules on the subject, as aforesaid.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that on behalf of the Government he accepted both the Amendments proposed.
  Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 31:—
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid his next Amendment was really consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 13, line 32, to leave out the words ' of an inspector.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33: —
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he could not understand what sub-section (2) of clause 33 meant. It would extend a most pernicious system, which he was sorry to say existed in some parts of Ireland. He could not see any case where it was absolutely necessary that a man should be told he could have a garden half
  392
  of which was forty yards away and the other half a mile away. He imagined that a labourer would like to have a garden adjoining his cottage, and therefore he should like the Government to accept his Amendment or give some strong reason why the words were placed in the Bill. They did not want tenants who had bought their land to have labourers with a plot here and a plot there.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, line 14, to leave out the words 'whether they adjoin or not.' "—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he could understand the noble Earl's objection to several or possibly many plots, and he had a suggestion to make which he thought would meet this objection If they struck out the words "or more" after the word "two" it would read "two parcels of land whether they adjoin or not." He hoped that would meet the objection the noble Earl had taken to the clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid there was no vestige of principle in that suggestion. The whole point of the objection was that the plot of land should be one. Surely it was not desirable that it should be split, and be in two places. The greatest struggle of the Congested District Boards had been to get facilities for the union of small farms, and if they began by saying that the small allotment to a cottage might be divided and be in two places, he did not see on what principle they were to stand. It would not be wise or prudent.
  LORD HEMPHILLsaid it was not always possible to have the whole acre immediately adjoining the cottage, and the object of the clause was that in those cases they might still carry out the policy of the Bill and give an acre of ground to the labourer where the whole acre could not be given in one plot; there was therefore a provision by which there might be half an acre adjoining the house and the other half acre in some convenient place on the estate. The clause, as it originally stood, was too vague and general, but no injustice would result

  393
  from it as proposed to be amended by the noble Lord on the Front Bench. That clearly was the object of the clause, because otherwise they might defeat the whole policy of the Bill, which was to give a labourer an acre of land in order that he might eke out his subsistence.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid they did not wish to defeat the policy of the Bill in any way; they were speaking in the interests of the labourer. There were 25,000 cottages to be built; and supposing there were 15,000 with half an acre of allotment distant from them, it would not be at all right. The long summer evening was the only time the labourer had got to work, and if they had two plots the second plot would remain derelict. They wanted to keep the labourer's land round his cottage. He should therefore like to adhere to his Amendment. Ho could not agree to leave out the words "or more."
  *THE EARL OF CREWEasked if he might make one more appeal to the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. He yielded to nobody in his dislike of excessive sub-divisions of land, but the provision was designed to meet, the case where it was not possible at the most convenient spot to put down a house to find a full acre of land. The noble Lord seemed to conclude that the remaining portion would necessarily be place at an extreme end of an immense estate. It was more likely to be as near as possible. In the interests of the landlords, it surely must be to the advantage of the estates that as many alternative sites as possible should be available. If they insisted upon the full acre of land being always attached to the house, they would greatly limit the choice of sites, and district councils would be compelled to apply for sites not so agreeable to noble Lords and other landlords in Ireland as if this simple form of division to which he could not see that any mischief could attach were adopted. He should like to appeal strongly to the noble Earl not to press his Amendment.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEsaid the subsection seemed a somewhat doubtful one, but he thought it was desirable to
  394
  retain in it a certain amount of elasticity. He understood that the Government were ready to leave out the words "or more; "That undoubtedly to some extent met the requirements of his noble friend; and, considering that on other points the noble Lords had met them not unfairly, he should counsel his noble friend to withdraw.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEasked how it was proposed to deal with the Bill on the morrow. There were, he said, a good many clauses to be amended, and they would like to know what opportunities they would have of considering them before the Bill was further advanced.
  LORD DENMANsaid it was hoped they might take both the Report and Third Reading Stages on the morrow. It was getting rather late, and, unless they did so, it would be very difficult to get the Royal Assent in Friday.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that the Report Stage might be taken at the beginning of the sitting, and the Third Reading at the end. That would give them an opportunity of studying the clauses, and they would not lose a day.
  LORD DENMAN: We shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)said they were most anxious to meet the noble Earl, but could the Bill be taken at the commencement of the sitting, before the other business which was now down?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid they were all anxious to do what they could to facilitate the passage of the Bill. He believed that notice had to be given of Amendments made on the Third Reading, but he suggested that the Amendments might be handed to the clerk at the Table, who might get them printed in a couple of hours. He asked if the Bill would be circulated on the morrow.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid he thought the Bill could and would be circulated by the time the House met. That would give noble Lords an opportunity of considering it during the sitting.
  Standing Committee negatived, vhe Report of Amendments to be recei ed To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 191.)

  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  DOGS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1: —
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 1 and 2, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid the Amendment he desired to move was one desiredby several county councils, particularly those in which there were large dairies, and where the chasing of cows might produce injury at some distant date. The second section of the Dogs Act of 1871 provided that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction might take cognizance of a complaint that a dog was dangerous and was not kept under proper control. If it appeared to such Court of Summary Jurisdiction that such dog was dangerous the Court might make an order directing that it should be kept under control or destroyed, and, if a person failed to comply with that order, he should be liable to a penalty not exceeding 20s. for every day he so failed. It was admitted in the case of sheep that it was very necessary that the clause should be passed, and they asked that a dog which was
  396
  seen chasing cattle might be considered to be a dangerous dog and might come under Section 2 of the Act of 1871.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the word 'sheep ' and insert the word ' cattle.' "—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  LORD BARNARDsuggested that, instead of saying cattle included horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats, and swine, they should adopt the words used in the title and speak of live stock.
  *LORD CLIFFORDobserved that he believed the definition given of "cattle" was almost word for word the definition given in "Webster's dictionary.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he must ask the House to leave the word "cattle" and not to substitute the words "live stock." He could not accept the Amendment, but perhaps the noble Lord would allow the clause to read "whore a dog is proved to have injured cattle or chased sheep." If that would satisfy the noble Lord, he would be pleased to have the words put in.
  LORD CLIFFORD: It is not quite what I wish, but I shall be pleased, under the circumstances, to accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words ' chased or' and to insert the words ' injure cattle or chased."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2, agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  A NOBLE LORDasked whether foxhounds were included in the regulations. He foresaw some difficulty unless they were excluded. He was in full sympathy with the object of Sub-section (b), and he understood there were Departmental reasons for pressing it forward, but he should like the House to have a little more time to consider it. He also asked how they were going to prevent dogs from straying. Dogs were not infrequently let loose for the purposes

  397
  of protection, and he should be glad to know how it was proposed to prevent that.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that foxhounds and all sporting dogs would naturally be exempted from wearing collars. If a dog was a stray dog, the police took it up, and, if nobody claimed it within seven days, they put it into a lethal chamber, where it received merciful and perhaps deserved death. Dogs let out at night without chains upon them came under the category of stray dogs.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 9, after the word 'dog,' to insert the words ' so seized.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert (6) The chief officer of police of a police area shall keep, or cause to he kept, one or more registers of all dogs seized under this section in that area which are not transferred to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs. The register shall contain a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure, and particulars as to the manner in which the dog is disposed of, and every such register shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by any member of the public on payment of a fee of one shilling. (7) The police shall not dispose of any dog seized under this section by transferring it to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs unless a register is kept for that establishment containing such particulars as to dogs received in the establishment as are above mentioned, and such register is open to inspection by the public on payment of a fee not exceeding one shilling."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he should like some provision beng put in the Bill for lethal chambers.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot do that, but I can assure the noble Lord that where there is no lethal chamber there is always a gun and pistol.
  Amendment moved—
  "In lines 27 and 28 to leave out the words 'arising from the sale, or received from the owner, of any dog in pursuance of,' and to insert the words ' received by the police under.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 11, to leave out the word "are duly complied with on the part of and to insert the words ' apply in the case.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  Cause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6: —
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 23, after ' any' to insert the words ' head of."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD CLIFFORDasked for an explanation as to the necessity of the Amendment, remarking that it did not make the clause read at all well. It did not sound anatomically correct.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid it was perfectly true that it sounded odd, but it was found in previous Acts of Parliament, and they ought to have the same phraseology.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7: —
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would admit an Amendment so that the name and address of an owner of a dog might be inscribed on the collar in Gaelic characters. He saw that a little lower down there was a similar Amendment to the effect that in Ireland the name and address of the owner might be inscribed on the collar in Irish characters. He wondered why Ireland was to be put in front of Scotland, and where the Scottish Members of Parliament were when the matter was discussed in the House of Commons. He asked whether the noble Lord would have any objection to the insertion of an Amendment to that effect.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he had had no demand for the Amendment, but, if the noble Earl was really serious and was expressing the wish of his fellow countrymen, he did not see any great objection to it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As the noble Lord says he has no objection to it I do not propose to move.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 19, after paragraph (c), to insert the following paragraph ' (d) Orders under Section 2 of this Act may permit the name and address of the owner of the dog to he inscribed in Irish characters-' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked the noble Earl to give a sketch of how the Amendment came to be moved in the House of Commons. He asked if it were a brand-new idea, whether the Government divided upon it, and whether it was suggested that there should be a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid it was rather difficult to explain, but he believed that the last Government got rather into difficulties with their Irish supporters by refusing to allow people to put their names in Irish upon their bread carts. Since the present Government came into power, that difficulty had been met.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I believe that the noble Earl is not right up to date.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he was informed it was so. The Amendment seemed very harmless, and it was moved because Irish Members in another place urged that there were districts in Ireland in which the Irish language was spoken and used. They pleaded for this small concession, and he could not see that there was any great objection to it.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEasked if the noble Earl was quite sure the Amendment was so harmless as he supposed. The object of the Amendment, under which dogs were to be decorated with collars and labels, was to enable the police to identify owners of dogs. Was the noble Earl quite satisfied that in all parts of Ireland there was sufficient knowledge of the Gaelic language among the police to enable them to decipher the mysterious inscription with which the unfortunate dogs would be labelled. Unless it were so, the Amendment was far from harmless.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he was informed that the Royal Irish Constabulary did not speak Irish and could not read it. It therefore seemed very evident that if an Irishman put an Irish name upon the collar of his dog, the police would not be able to read it or to trace the owner, but would keep the dog for seven days, and then would put it into a lethal chamber or shoot it through the head. The object of the Bill was to get rid of stray dogs, and he did not think any better plan could be adopted in Ireland than to allow the Amendment to go through.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEsaid they had to provide against the Amendment in the interests of the dog. It was very hard that the dog should be taken from its "public resort "To the lethal chamber simply because the owner chose to have his name inscribed upon its collar in characters which could not be read.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREpointed out that the very reason just put forward by his noble friend was the reason given by the Department of Agriculture in another place for refusing the Amendment. It refused the Amendment in the interests of the dog.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid the fact of a dog having an address and the name of a man upon its collar in an unknown language did not make the dog less of a stray dog. If the dog were not claimed within seven days,it would be shot through the head and a very good thing too.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  New clause;—
  "In this Act the expression 'cattle' includes horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats and swine."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, new clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

  BILL OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882)AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  DEANERY OF ANCHESTER BILL.
  Order of the day for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS OF RIPON)said the Bill was one for the purpose of regulating the salary of the Dean of Manchester, and it resulted from the sale of the late deanery producing a larger sum than was necessary for the erection of a new deanery. The Bill provided for the disposal of the surplus. It was agreed to by the present dean, and any surplus which might be found after having paid the new salary would be devoted to the purposes of the Cathedral.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  CROWN LAND BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES)BILL.
  Education (England and Wales) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday next. (The Lord President [E. Crewe]). (No. 182.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock a.m. till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.