§ The further Amendments made by the Commons to Lords Amendments, and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain Amendments last made by the Lords, considered (according to Order).
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "of the land," for the reason that the words are unnecessary. I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendment.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Commons disagree to the Lords Amendments, in page 1, line 9, and to the Amendments in page 3, line 3, line 11, and lines 17 and 18. Your Lordships will remember that you inserted an Amendment in page 1, line 9, providing that the Estates Commissioners should pay to a landlord "compensation for the loss which would be sustained by him by being deprived of his land." The original Bill provided that the Commissioners should pay the "value." The reason given by the Commons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment is that, having regard to other provisions of the Act, compensation ought not to be paid to owners in accordance with the principles of the Lands Clauses Acts. I beg to move, first, that the House do not insist on its Amendment in page 1, line 9.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ * VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought they could hardly pass from this Amendment without registering their regret and disappointment at the action of the 284 Government. No Bill ever came before the House which appeared to have received less consideration with respect to some provisions. This Amendment was no exception to the rule. There had been practically no defence from those in charge of the Bill of the clause as it came up from the Commons. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was the first to recognise that the words as they came from the Commons giving the settlement of value to the Commissioners who took the land without appeal left the matter in a position for which there was no precedent in the English law. On this question of what the landlord was to get, all their Lordships asked was exactly that which would be obtained in England and Scotland; that was to say, compensation for the loss of his land. The word "value" did not include what would have been included in the word "compensation"—consideration for severance from other property, or damage done by its being compulsorily taken. There was nothing to show whether it meant value to the landlord or to the purchasing tenant. He deeply regretted that His Majesty's Government had chosen to refuse guiding words for this very important Commission. They were to-day at the last stage of the Bill. The noble Earl had endeavoured to meet them as far as possible. On some considerable points he had recognised the weight of the arguments addressed to their Lordships. They were now fact; to face with the difficulty of insisting on that which they believed to be absolutely right and just, or leaving themselves in the hands of the Commissioners in a matter in which they were denied what was given in the English Bill. The word "compensation" was good in the case of the English landlord and tenant, but not apparently for the Irish landlord in like conditions. He asked the Government to indicate the purpose of insisting on the world "value" The words as they stood seemed to leave the Commissioners free to put a sinister interpretation on the word "value" and to decide the price according to what a tenant could make out of the land, ignoring the value which the landlord might have realised. He did not propose to ask their Lordships to insist upon the Amendment; but if he did so he believed 285 he would have the support not only of all interested in Irish land, but of those who had shown by their action on the English Bill that they thought that this word "compensation" should be inserted in the Irish measure. He hoped that the noble Earl would make clear that the intentions of the Government were what he believed them to be, that the word should be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI am glad that the noble Viscount does not ask the House to press the insertion of the word "compensation." I think I have explained before that we have throughout preferred the word "value" to "compensation," because we do not desire to apply the principles of purchase under the Lands Clauses Act to the special purchases which are to take place for the purpose of this Bill. The noble Viscount altogether omitted to mention what we have done as regards Clause 6, and when you are comparing Ireland with England it is important to remember that there is in this Bill what certainly does not exist in any other Act—an absolute prohibition to take land when it can be shown to interfere with the amenities or value of the adjoining property. I think this ought to have been mentioned when the noble Viscount was comparing the treatment of the two countries. I should have thought that landlords would receive complete protection under the very wide provisions which we have placed at the end of Clause 6. We have always said that we desire the landlord to receive a fair price for his land, and when the noble Viscount asks me if it is to be the value to the vendor, I do not quite understand what he means. Does he mean that if a man can show that he has been receiving for a number of years a particular rent, under no matter what circumstances, for a certain piece of land, he is entitled to assume that this is the permanent and absolute value of the land, and that therefore he ought to be given a sum which for ever and ever will bring him in interest equal to that particular rent? That I is a contention to which I could not subscribe, either in connection with Ireland or anywhere else. But it is 286 undoubtedly true that if a landlord is able to show that a certain rent has been paid for a number of years, and there is reason to suppose that it could be paid for a number of years to come, it must be almost a paramount element in arriving at what we describe as the value of the land. It is certainly not my right hon. friend's intention, or that of any member of the Government, that the landlord should receive anything less than a perfectly fair price for his land.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe noble Earl complained that my noble friend Lord Midleton had said nothing, in the course of his observations, about the Amendment which His Majesty's Government have made in Clause 6. Let me say at once that I regard that Amendment as a very important one, and I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for having made it; but while that Amendment diminishes the area of the land which can be taken by the Estates Commissioners for the purposes of the Bill, it does not establish the right of the landlord to equitable treatment in respect of the land which can still be taken from him. I have never been able to understand the extraordinary reluctance of His Majesty's Ministers to face the word "compensation" I should have gone the length of saying that wherever the British language is spoken it would be admitted that when a Government takes from any individual by compulsion something which belongs to that individual, the person from whom that something is taken is entitled to compensation. Compensation is the only word which really describes what everybody would admit to be due to the sufferer in such a case. The word occurs throughout the English Bill, and we see no reason why it should not be put into this Bill also. There is one circumstance which we on this side of the House cannot lose sight of. We have had a terrible lesson as to the effect of the use of vague language in all these statutes relating to land in Ireland, and that is why we so strongly prefer a word having a certain amount of precision about it to the extremely vague expression "value" However, I very much prefer the word "value" 287 to the words "fair market value," as they originally stood in the Bill. I feel that after what my noble friend has said it is not necessary to pursue this controversy further. I only desire to make it quite clear that we give up the word "compensation" not because we believe it to be unnecessary, but under duress from His Majesty's Ministers.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI think I ought to make it clear that the value, as stated in Clause 1, does not include the bonus. The value is paid for the land, and after that it is declared an estate, and upon that declaration it becomes entitled to receive the bonus; so that the owner gets the value of the land plus the bonus.
THE LORD CHANCELLORThe first of the Lords Amendments to which the Commons disagree is in page 1, line 9; but that Amendment does not appear on either of the prints before me.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Lords Amendment on page 1, line 9, was to leave out the words "fair market value thereof" and to insert the words "compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof."
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThese Papers are in most distressing confusion. Might it not be desirable that the clause as it will run should be read to the House by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or by the Lord President?
THE LORD CHANCELLORIf the House does not insist upon its Amendment, the clause will run that the Estates Commissioners shall pay to the landlord "the fair market value."
THE LORD CHANCELLORIf your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment the words "fair market value" will remain; but it will be open to the House, after agreeing not to insist on the Amendment, to leave out the words "fair market."
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Moved, "That the word 'value' stand in place of the words 'compensation for the loss which will be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI now move that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendments in page 3, line 3, line 11, and lines 17 and 18. This Motion is consequential upon the one to which you have just agreed.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendments."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI am sorry, my Lords, that we are experiencing such difficulty in dealing with these various Papers. I do not know whether it will be any consolation when I say that I am told similar difficulties confronted hon. Gentlemen in another place when they were dealing with this matter yesterday. The next Amendment is that which we have been accustomed to speak of as Lord Robertson's Amendment—that is to say, the Amendment inserted for the protection of the planters. Although the Commons disagree with the form of Lord Robertson's Amendment, they concede the principle, and I need not call the attention of the House to the very great importance of this particular concession. The words which we propose to insert at the end of Clause 1, Subsection (3), are—
Provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bone fide tenant using oaf cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry.My right hon. friend accepted this Amendment with great reluctance, because he thought—and I confess I entirely agree with him—that the provisions as regards new tenants are made practically nugatory by it. I do not desire to say anything more on the subject. We agree to this proviso, and therefore I hope your Lordships will 289 give us due credit for having endeavoured to meet what?, I think, were very unreasonable fears on this particular matter.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD ASHBOURNEasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill what had been done to safeguard those who had not actually bought their holdings, but had agreed to do so.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWESubsections (3), (4), and (5) of Clause 1 will now read as follows—
(3) Provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry.(4) For the purpose of this enactment a person shall be deemed to be a tenant notwithstanding that he may have agreed to purchase his holding, if the agreement was entered into after the first day of May, 1907, and if the holding has not become vested in him as a purchaser under the Land Purchase Acts.(5) No land shall be acquired compulsorily which is subject to an annuity for the repayment of an advance under the Land Purchase Acts.The noble Lord will see that any man who has entered into an agreement prior to the first day of May is safeguarded.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid these were rather curious cross references, but if the noble Earl was satisfied that these men were protected he was content.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Motion is that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendments in page 2, line 15 and lines 16 to 21, and that you agree to the insertion of the new Subsection (3) which I have read and which is proposed by the House of Commons.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he could not find in the White Paper any trace of the new Subsections (4) and (5) which the Lord President had read.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThere is a doubt whether the words already appear in the print, and I think the safest plan will be to move them in now.
THE LORD CHANCELLORI will first put the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendments in page 2, line 15, and lines 16 to 21.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLORI now put the Motion that the Commons proviso at the end of Clause 1, Subsection (3), be agreed to.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI now move the insertion of the two further subsections—Subsections (4) and (5)—which I read to the House a moment ago.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Commons agree to the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 3, line 23, but propose to leave out the words "amount of compensation," and to insert the words "the purchase money." This is consequential.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment in page 3, line 30, and insist on their Amendment in page 3, line 34, but propose to amend the words so restored by leaving out in line 8 the words "hear in the prescribed manner" and inserting the words "with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors nominated by him for the purpose hear," and by inserting in line 10, after "1881," the words "other than the power to direct a valuer to report." Noble Lords will 291 remember that our view was that an appeal on value should go to the Judicial Commissioner, but we offered, if it would make that arrangement more agreeable to noble Lords, to add that the Judicial Commissioner should have the assistance of two qualified lay assessors, who should sit with him rather in the manner in which Trinity House experts sit in the the Admiralty Court. Whether that is an agreeable suggestion to noble Lords opposite I really do not know. We do not set any particular store by it, and should be willing, with perfect confidence to leave this appeal to Mr. Justice Wylie. It is for noble Lords opposite to say whether or not they wish that Mr. Justice Wylie should sit with these two assessors.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD ATKINSONsaid he had been asked to disentangle these Amendments. The noble Lord then proceeded to explain the nature of Amendments which he intended to move to the provision that appeals under the Act should lie to the Judicial Commissioner sitting with two lay assessors. He objected to the assessors, for those who had experience in Ireland of a Judge sitting with assessors were convinced that the system was utterly unsatisfactory. Mr. Justice Wylie was nominated Judicial Commissioner because of the confidence reposed in him by both sides. But there was a power in the Lord Chancellor, under the Purchase Act of 1903, to transfer the duties of the Estates Commissioners to other Judges; and he therefore proposed to move that the power and duties of the Judicial Commissioner should not be exercised or performed by any other Judge appointed as Judicial Commissioner, save during the absence through illness of the Judicial Commissioner. He also proposed to provide an alternative appeal—to confine the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner to questions of value and give an appeal on questions of law and fact to a Judge of Assize of the King's Bench Division. The Judicial Commissioner would have power to appoint a valuer. He intended to propose that that valuer should be produced as a witness and examined as 292 to the reasons for the conclusions he had come to if either of the parties so desired. Throughout the working of the different systems in Ireland it had been considered most objectionable that when a valuer was employed he should not be produced at the witness table, so as to give his reasons for the conclusion he had formed. The system that had hitherto obtained was like that of giving evidence behind the backs of the parties and in the dark. He could not conceive what valid objection there could be to allowing the valuer, after he had reported to the Judge, to be examined and cross-examined as to the basis on which he had gone and the principles on which he had acted.
THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble and learned Lord's Amendments are not on the Paper and I desire to make a suggestion to secure the orderly putting of these Questions. The first point is: Will your Lordships insist on your Amendment in page 3, line 30? It has been moved that the House do not insist on that Amendment. The next point is that the Commons insist on their Amendment in page 3, line 34, but propose to amend the words so restored. If the House accepts as a basis the Commons Amendment in page 3, line 34, I would suggest that the other Amendments should be taken as successive to that Amendment, and should be put in their order one after another separately.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid there was no desire now to have the assessors, and therefore the words "with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors nominated by him for the purpose" would go out.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThat is so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, has stated this rather complicated situation with a clearness which I am sure must have appealed to all your Lordships. I would say, first, that I am very glad to find that, even though unwillingly, the noble and learned Lord and his friends have come round to our suggestion that Mr. Justice Wylie should be given the appeal on questions of value. The two assessors, as I have already stated, were only suggested to meet 293 a supposed desire of noble Lords opposite, and if they drop out it will cause us no special sorrow. The general effect of the Amendments which the noble and learned Lord has intimated his intention of moving, is that the appeals on value will go to Mr. Justice Wylie, assisted by a valuer under the Act of 1881, if he so chooses. I pass by, for the moment, the question of the appeals under Clause 6, and come to the important point mentioned by the noble and learned Lord—namely, his desire that this valuer should be subjected to cross-examination. I do trust noble Lords opposite will not insist on that change. I do not complain that these Amendments are proposed without notice, because all the proceedings at this stage are necessarily without much notice; but it is, so far as I know, a purely unprecedented thing that a valuer called in to assist a Judge in this way should be subjected to cross-examination by the parties or by those who legally represent them. There are two very distinct objections to this course being taken. In the first place, I should have thought the possibility of being put into the witness-box, or, as we say in Ireland, on the table, and cross-examined, would prevent a valuer of real standing from undertaking this work at all; and that is a consideration which I should like your Lordships to bear in mind. I am perfectly certain that the kind of man you would get to do the work would necessarily be of somewhat inferior character to the valuer who would otherwise be employed. I do not want to repeat what I said on this matter of valuation at an earlier stage of the Bill, but I would ask your Lordships, from your own knowledge of land and kindred matters, How is a valuation of that kind susceptible of cross-examination? A great many of your Lordships know land well, and are good judges of it. If you were driving about the estate of some friend you would be able to judge pretty accurately what the land you were passing through was paying per acre, and if you knew the average rent paid in the neighbourhood you would be able to arrive at a fairly correct conclusion in each case. But if you were put into the witness-box and asked to say how you had arrived at the opinion that a particular farm 294 would average 25s. or 30s. an acre, I am inclined to think you would be very much puzzled to describe the mental process at which you reached that conclusion. I do not think that the processes of valuation and of cross-examination are really compatible things; and under these circumstances I hope noble Lords opposite will not press that Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNELet me say at the outset, with regard to the proposal made by His Majesty's Government that the Judicial Commissioner should be assisted by two independent assessors, that the noble Earl is quite right in stating that this proposal was put forward by His Majesty's Government in the belief that it might have the effect of reconciling noble Lords who are interested in this matter to the Judicial Commissioner as a Court of Appeal. I confess that to me it seemed that there was a good deal to be said for associating the Judicial Commissioner with two carefully chosen assessors, but the idea has not found favour with noble Lords qualified to speak, and therefore we certainly should be glad if that proposal were allowed to drop out. With regard to the attitude of those who sit round me on the question of appeal, I hope it will be understood that we have never desired to put into this Bill any provisions which might have the effect of rendering proceedings under it needlessly dilatory or expensive. We gave evidence of our good faith in that matter in an Amendment proposed by Lord Atkinson, which took away altogether from appeal what has been generally spoken of as appeal on necessity. But we did very earnestly desire that there should be an appeal on the question of price and other questions arising under the Bill to some tribunal external to the Land Commission. We have now, however, been told, finally and conclusively, that we are not to have such an appeal, and I do not desire to press that point further. But I am glad the noble Earl has no objection to allowing an appeal on questions arising under Clause 6, not to the Judicial Commissioner, but to a Judge. That is the proposal embodied in one of Lord Atkinson's Amendments, which I understand is not unacceptable to the Government. Under that 295 Amendment as I understand it, it will be possible for a planter to appeal upon the question whether he does or does not come within the description contained in the concluding part of the clause moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson. There remain the two suggestions made by Lord Atkinson—one that the cases should be heard by the Judicial Commissioner himself and not by a substitute; the other that the valuer should be subject to cross-examination. Neither of those proposals has been yet before the House, and I say frankly that I do not see how we can press them if the Government altogether refuse to entertain them. The noble Earl has told us distinctly that the Government cannot accept the second proposal. But I hope that the first may be accepted, since we on this side have been greatly reconciled to the proposal of the Government on account of the confidence inspired by Mr. Justice Wylie's high character and antecedents.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI am sorry I omitted to mention this point. We have no objection whatever to accepting the Amendment with regard to Mr. Justice Wylie. It really only conveys what we always meant should be the manner in which appeals should be carried out. As the noble Marquess has mentioned it, I ought to say something now about the later subsection—the appeals under Clause 6. We do, I confess with very considerable reluctance, place the appeals under Clause 6 on a different footing from appeals on value. Some people, I believe, think that so far as the operations of this Bill are concerned, Clause 2, as amended, destroys any possibility of dealing with tenanted land; that Clause 6, as now amended, will destroy the possibility of dealing with untenanted land, and that the operations of the Bill are not, therefore, likely to be wide. One objection is that appeals of this kind are likely to mean expense; and if it were the case that the Treasury was to have to pay for every appeal which might be made at the instance of every solicitor concerned with these transactions, we should not have been able to accept this appeal. But noble Lords will notice that in this particular instance, the 296 Judge may make such order as to costs as he may think fit. If people make frivolous appeals, they ought very properly to be saddled with the costs.
THE LORD CHANCELLORI will now put the Motion that this House do not insist upon its Amendment in page 3, line 30.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Commons Amendment thereupon amended (on the Motion of Lord ATKINSON) in such a manner as to provide that the power and duties of the Judicial Commissioner should not be exercised by any other Judge, except during the absence through illness of the Judicial Commissioner; that any person aggrieved by any determination of the Estates Commissioners of a question arising under the provision of the Act imposing restrictions on the acquisition of land might appeal locally or to a Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, placed on the rota for the purposes of the Act; and that the Judge should have the power of determining all questions of law and fact arising on any such appeal other than the question referred to the Judicial Commissioner.
§ Drafting and consequential Amendments agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Commons insist on their Amendment in page 4, line 4—
Unless the new tenant has applied for compensation as hereinafter provided.This Amendment was inserted by the Commons when the Bill first went down, but it was disagreed to by your Lordships, and the Commons have re-inserted it, because in their opinion the words are necessary.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had no doubt he would agree to the Commons Amendment, but he would like to have a glimmering of what it meant.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI take it that it simply means that unless the new tenant has applied for compensation in money, the Estates Commissioners will place him in possession of a parcel of land somewhere else. It is, in essence a drafting Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNESurely this is a very dangerous way to deal with Amendments. I am unable to find the slightest trace of the Amendment on the Paper, and I do not know what it is about.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had moved an Amendment on this question at a previous stage, but could not follow what was being done now. But if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill understood it, he was satisfied.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 5, line 5, and insist on their Amendments in page 5, line 6, and lines 7 and 8. They disagree because your Lordships' Amendments are inconsistent with the Commons proposal respecting the Appeal tribunal.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendments."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEWe now come to Clause 6. The Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment in page 5, line 26, and to the Amendment in page 5, line 32, for the reason that it is inexpedient to restrict the acquisition of land in the manner proposed. In arriving at that conclusion hon. Gentlemen in another place were very much guided by the wide words as to damage to land which we inserted at the end of 298 this clause. I think those words practically safeguard landowners, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will not insist on your Amendments. We always objected to the words "which for any reason possesses exceptional or accommodation value to the owner." I hope that as we have reached very near argeement on other matters, your Lordships will not press this Amendment now. I cannot conceive that there is any prospect of building land being taken, and under these circumstances I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I may remind noble Lords that the appeal which is now given to the High Court upon all these questions does safeguard noble Lords and landowners generally to a very great extent.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendments."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI always thought there was a strong case for including a reference to building land amongst those classes of land which would not be compulsorily acquired, and we were under the impression that His Majesty's Government had accepted this. But I think the noble Earl is perfectly justified in urging that this clause, if weakened by the omission of the reference to building land, will be considerably strengthened by the Government's Amendment at the end of the clause. I would, therefore, suggest to my noble friends behind me that they should not press the Amendment.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThe Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment in page 6, line 39, for the reason that the words are unnecessary.
§ Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEA consequential Amendment has been made by the Commons on page 5, line 34 to leave out from "of" to the end of line 36, and to 299 insert the words "any other property of the owner so as not to diminish the value thereof." I ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment.
§ Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThat, my Lords, concludes the consideration of these Amendments.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI do not know whether, before we entirely part with this Bill, it would be possible to have it looked through by a small Committee to see if the Amendments are correctly inserted. But for the guidance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I do not think we should have been able to have got through the Bill at all, and whether we have done so with absolute success he would be a bold man who would say.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEThere is no doubt that, owing to the manner in which the different Papers come up to your Lordships, it is difficult to follow the precise effect of an Amendment; but, so far as I know, the Amendments have all been inserted in their proper places and in proper form, thanks, as the noble Marquess has said, to the way in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has conducted the business. At the same time, we gladly fall in with the noble Marquess's suggestion.
Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords disagreeing to the said Amendment, the Committee to meet forthwith.
§ Bill returned to the Commons.