§ Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD DENMAN, who had an Amendment to Clause 6 (Orders of Local Government Board to have effect of Act), reminded the House that the clause was amended in Committee on a division, and said the Government declined to accept any responsibility for the clause as it now stood. But, if the Bill were to pass into law in its present shape, an alteration was necessary to subsection (4) of Clause 6. This subsection enabled the Local Government Board to modify an order if the order was petitioned against. Two classes of order were mentioned in the subsection, which was copied straight from the Act of 1903; but if the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, would look at the beginning 27 of Clause 6, he would see that there were three classes of order mentioned. He did not think it was the noble Viscount's intention to omit the third class of order. Therefore, if the words proposed in his (Lord Denman's) Amendment were inserted, the third class of order would be covered.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words 'under subsection (4) of Section 8 or under Section 39 of the Act of 1890,' and to insert the words 'of the Local Government Board.'"—(Lord Denman.)
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONaccepted the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENMANmoved, in Clause 7, to leave out the words "local authority," and to insert the words "any urban or rural district council." He explained that the question arose on an Amendment moved in Committee by the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery to prevent local authorities going outside their own area. At the instance of Lord Lansdowne, words were inserted in Committee which prevented a local authority going outside its own area unless it obtained the assent of the adjacent local authority. His (Lord Denman's) own view at the time was that, as the clause in the Bill was copied direct from the English Act, which had been found to work well, it might have been allowed to remain as it stood. The Committee, however, thought otherwise. In the Amendment inserted on the Motion of Lord Lansdowne two words required alteration. The noble Marquess inserted the words "local authority" within whose district it was proposed to establish or acquire such lodging-houses. For the purpose of this Bill the term "local authority" excluded a rural district council. He did not imagine that it was proposed to prevent a local authority going into the area of a rural district council, if it obtained the consent of that rural district council, and he therefore moved to leave out the words "local authority," and to insert in their place "any urban or rural district council."
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 8, to leave out the words 'local authority,' and to insert the words 'any urban or rural district council.'"—(Lord Denman.)
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that his noble friend Lord Pembroke, in moving the Amendment in Committee, had in mind chiefly the particular townships in the neighbourhood of Dublin, such as Rathmines and Pembroke. Would the substitution of the words proposed have any effect as regards the inclusion or exclusion of those townships.
*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERYpointed out that the term "local authority" was used all through the Bill. It therefore passed his comprehension why the term should be charged in one subsection to "urban or rural district council."
LORD DENMANpresumed that in the other cases mentioned in the Bill it was not necessary to include a rural district council under local authorities.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENMANthought it might be convenient, in moving his Amendment to Clause 9 (Amendment of law as to closing and demolition orders) to discuss also the Amendment which Lord Clonbrock had on the Paper. Lord Clonbrock's Amendment removed the necessity of serving a preliminary notice before applying for a closing order. That was not quite the same thing as was dealt with under Clause 9 of the Bill. The difficulty they had to meet was the delay in getting a demolition order. Under the Act of 1890 the order was made by the local authority. In the clause of the Bill as it now stood they proposed that this power should not be given to the local authority, but to the Court. The first Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, and which he now moved, was to insert after the word "Court" the words "in addition to or instead of making an order under that 29 section." That made it clear that the Court had the option of making the closing order or of making a demolition order. He gathered from what was said in the Committee stage that Lord Clonbrock was of opinion that the power of making a demolition order should not be given to a local authority for fear it might abuse its power. The power was not given to the local authority at all; it was given to the Court. Therefore he thought that met the noble Lord's point. He took it that the noble Lord was at one with the Government in wishing that the proceedings under previous Acts of Parliament for demolishing unsightly and unsatisfactory buildings should be accelerated.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 41, after the word 'Court' to insert the words 'in addition to or instead of making an order under that section.'"—(Lord Denman.)
LORD CLONBROCK, who had given notice of an Amendment to leave out olause 9 and to insert as a new clause—
9. (1) If, in the opinion of the local authority, any dwelling house is not reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation, or is in such a state that the occupation thereof should be immediately discontinued, it shall not be necessary for them, before obtaining a closing order, to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of the premises to abate the nuisance, and a justice may issue a summons for a closing order, and a closing order may be granted, although such a notice has not been served. (2) The Local Government Board may by order prescribe forms in substitution for those in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1890, and Section 32 of that Act shall have effect as if the forms so prescribed were referred to therein in lieu of the forms in that scheduleagreed with Lord Denman as to the convenience of discussing his (Lord Clonbrock's) Amendment in connection with the one now before the House. His object was to assimilate the law in Ireland under this Bill to that in England, namely, to separate the two questions of closing and demolition. He was informed that in this country a local authority made an application for a closing order and that was adjudicated upon by the justices; then an application was made, if necessary, for demolition, and that was treated in the same way. He thought it would be a better and more businesslike way that each 30 order should be preceded by a separate application. In the Bill as it stood an application made for closure might be immediately followed by a demolition order, and he thought that might be hard on the owner, who would have received no notice of the application for the demolition order but only of one for a closing order. He did not in the least wish to perpetuate unsightly and insanitary buildings. He would like to see them all pulled down and carted away and proper workmen's dwellings erected in their place; but he did not see that there was such a violent hurry that there should not be two separate procedures.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEwas disposed to think that the object which the Government and his noble friend Lord Clonbrock had in view were practically identical. There was no desire to place any difficulty in the way of demolition. The point was a technical difference as to procedure. He thought the method proposed by the Government was not inconvenient. The Government's object appeared to be to avoid the necessity of a double set of summonses and a double set of proceedings. It was not desirable in small cases of this kind to duplicate legal proceedings. If the Government's Amendment to the original clause were made, he gathered that the result would be that the whole case would be before the magistrates. If the magistrates thought that a case had been made out for a demolition order they would make it, and would append a condition that the house need not be demolished if within a time named it was made habitable. Then there would not be demolition, because the person in charge of the house had made it habitable. He did not think that was inconveniently worked out by the Amendments on the Paper in the name of Lord Denman.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that in reality, if the clause and the Government's Amendments to it were adopted, Ireland would be placed in a more favourable position than England in regard to this provision. He would be glad if the facility of procedure which would be 31 possible under this clause could be extended to England in a future session.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD ATKINSONhad an Amendment on the Paper to amend Clause 11—
For the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts Section 72 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as amended by the Second Schedule to the Act of 1890, shall have effect as if 'one hundred pounds' were substituted therein for 'twenty pounds.'"—by leaving out "one hundred" and inserting "sixty," and by adding at the end of the clause the following proviso—Provided that the aggregate of such sums payable under the seventieth section of the first-mentioned statute as amended as aforesaid, and by this Act, to any one or more of the persons mentioned therein as the purchase money of different portions of lands of which land he, she, or they, shall not at the time of such purchase be tenants or tenants in fee, shall not exceed £250.The noble and learned Lord said that the clause on the Paper was hurriedly drafted, and he was not satisfied with it. He therefore proposed to bring up a clause on Third Reading carrying out his object.
THE EARL OF MEATHsaid it would be in the recollection of the House that, when the Bill was discussed in Committee, he moved an Amendment in Clause 12, which their Lordships accepted, for the purpose of safeguarding open spaces. In that Amendment he used the word "Act," but His Majesty's Government, at the last moment, suggested that the word "section" should be substituted. Although his own private opinion at the time was that this would be a very important weakening of the Amendment, he did not like, on his own authority, to question the decision of the Committee, as nobody opposed the substitution; but he afterwards had an opportunity of discussing the point with the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Lord Ashbourne encouraged him to put 32 down the Amendment now standing in his name on the Paper, reinstating the word "Act." He did not think His Majesty's Government quite realised what the effect would be of substituting "section" for "Act." The proviso to Clause 12 as it now stood provided that nothing in the section should authorise the appropriation of any common land, recreation ground, or other public open space, etc., for the purposes of the Bill. Clause 16 provided that the Bill should be read as one with, among other Acts, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which gave compulsory powers to local bodies, for which it was not necessary to obtain Parliamentary sanction. He therefore proposed to substitute the word "Act" for the word "section," so as to make the proviso apply to the whole Bill. If the word "section" were left in these bodies would be able to acquire land compulsorily under the Act of 1890.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 7, line 39, to leave out the word 'section' and to insert the word 'Act.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)
LORD DENMANexpressed regret that the noble Earl had been encouraged by the noble and learned Lord opposite to put down this Amendment, because it was one to which the Government could not assent. He could assure the noble Earl that the Government quite realised the difference between "section" and "Act" as applied in this particular clause. The noble Earl appeared to fear the compulsory powers given in other parts of the Bill, but as the Bill stood now, it did not give any compulsory powers at all which were not already given under the Act of 1890. Under that Act every local authority had power to acquire land compulsorily or the purposes of the Act, but before exercising these powers it must obtain the sanction of a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board, which had to be confirmed by Parliament. By Clause 6 of the Bill it was originally proposed to dispense with the necessity of going to Parliament. However, on an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton, that particular power was taken away, and 33 it would still be necessary for the Provisional Order to come before Parliament after receiving the assent of the Local Government Board in Ireland. Clause 12 conferred a new power upon bodies corporate for appropriating land for the housing of the working classes, and the noble Earl's original Amendment was intended to be restrictive of this new power, and therefore should be confined to the section conferring that power. He was informed by the legal adviser at the Irish Office that it would be, in his opinion, extremely dangerous if the word "Act" were substituted for the word "section." He thought the serious result that might ensue from the adoption of the noble Lord's Amendment would be not only to restrict considerably the powers conferred by this Bill, but also to restrict the powers already given under the Act of 1890.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the Amendment which had the approval of the Committee contained the word "Act," and the word "section" was substituted hastily under the impression that it was only a drafting Amendment. Further consideration had convinced him that the Amendment was necessary to protect common land, recreation grounds, and public open spaces from encroachment.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow the argument of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. He seems to think that by some means or other if this word "section" is retained, some person or persons will have power to devote public recreation grounds and other plots of land of a similar character to building schemes. Surely that is not the case. All that the substitution of the word "section" for "Act" did, as I understand, was to place the law in Ireland in the position in which it is left by the Act of 1890. By that Act it would, no doubt, be possible for a local authority to ask for a Provisional Order to use part of its open spaces for a housing scheme. For all I know it may actually have been done. That has to come before the Local Government Board, and, if they grant a Provisional Order for that 34 purpose, the Order has to be presented to Parliament. You cannot do more than bring a scheme of that kind before Parliament. That is perfectly obvious, and that is the safeguard which is provided for recreation grounds and similar places under the English law. The effect of inserting the word "section" is to leave the matter in that form. If you substitute the word "Act," as I understand, you place these recreation grounds in Ireland in a different position from that in which they are under the Act of 1890. It may be, as an abstract question, a good thing to do; but you are altering the main Act which deals with these matters. Clause 12 deals with an entirely different matter. It deals with the powers of bodies corporate to apply land for a particular purpose, and when we welcomed the Amendment of the noble Earl on the cross benches we expressed a general welcome to the principle of his Amendment; but, in saying we thought it was a good thing that the particular operations of Clause 12 should be limited in this way, we certainly did not bind ourselves to approving every word of the Amendment, and we certainly did not bind ourselves to modify the law as it exists under the Act of 1890. I therefore hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MEATHpersisted in his Amendment and said he should press it to a division if he received any encouragement. He was very grateful to Lord Denman for having drawn the attention of the House to the fact that it was the intention of the Government that burial grounds should be built over for workmen's dwellings when local authorities so desired, and that it could be done by the Act of 1890. During the Committee stage he (Lord Meath) had pointed out that in six separate Acts of Parliament the Legislature had said that it did not desire to have open spaces built over, and if by the Act of 1890 this could be done it was an oversight which Parliament did not intend. If that was so, it was better to take the bull by the horns at once. They had learned that day that there was the intention on the part of the Government to sanction the use of open spaces for workmen's dwellings when local authorities so desired.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMay I ask how the noble Earl arrives at that inference?
THE EARL OF MEATHOf course, if the noble Earl tells me I am mistaken I bow to his decision. I certainly understood that that was so from what was said.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am very anxious not to misunderstand the position taken by His Majesty's Government. I understood the other evening that the policy which found favour with your Lordships was that of affording the utmost amount of protection to commons, recreation grounds, village greens, and so forth, and that we desired that lands of that particular kind should not be encroached upon for the purpose of providing improved housing accommodation for the working classes. We accordingly proposed that this subsection should ensure that nothing in this Act should give increased facilities for encroachments of that kind. We are now asked to be content with the word "section" instead of the word "Act." If the word "section" is to stand, then surely we fall back upon the earlier clause—Clause 6—of the Bill, in which we find that an Order of the Local Government Board authorising the acquisition of land for the purposes of Part III.—Part III. deals with the provision of workmen's lodging houses—shall, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1890 or any other Acts, take effect without confirmation by Parliament or by the Local Government Board. If those words are really to govern all cases of this kind in the future, does it not mean that we give to the Local Government Board an absolute right of dealing with these commons and vacant spaces in a manner which I should have thought was entirely opposed to the general desire of the House?
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENMANhad an Amendment on the Paper to amend the same subsection—subsection (4) Clause 12—by removing the restriction on local authorities to appropriate or utilise for the purposes of the Act lands held by them 36 "for public or charitable purposes," but after what had just occurred he was not quite sure whether it was worth while moving the Amendment. He mentioned that these words were inserted in Committee on the Motion of the Earl of Pembroke, and were only agreed to by the Government subject to further consideration. The Government had now come to the conclusion that if the words were allowed to stand they would prevent local authorities from using any land in their possession for providing workmen's dwellings.
*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERYsaid he was willing to agree to the omission of the word "public" so that any lands held by a local authority other than for charitable purposes might be used for the purposes of the Act.
§ LORD ATKINSONagreed with Lord Denman that if the word "public" were left in it would prevent a local authority from appropriating any land held by them for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings, because, presumably, all land held by a local authority was held for a public purpose. He suggested that on the Third Reading some words might be devised to prevent the use of lands held for a definite and specific public purpose, which was the only object aimed at. He thought some such words as these would meet the case—
Or held in trust for a charitable purpose or for some particular public purpose specified or defined as distinct from the general purpose of the municipality or district or the general benefit of its inhabitants.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the object of the subsection which was inserted on the Motion of the Earl of Meath was to protect open spaces from being utilised for the provision of workmen's cottages; and the addition of the words "public or charitable purposes," went far beyond that object, and would be a serious restriction on local authorities in putting the Act into operation. Therefore he hoped, even if they could not arrive at agreement now, that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, would be adopted, and the matter further considered on Third Reading.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI would point out that there is no Amendment before the House. Informal conversation is very often useful at such a stage as this, but I would call attention to the fact that there is no Amendment before us.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 8, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'or held for public or charitable purposes.'"—(Lord Denman.)
*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERYreminded the noble Lord that he had expressed his willingness to agree to the omission of the word "public." He hoped the Government would accept that. But he could not consent to leave out words the insertion of which was the principal object of his original Amendment—namely, the words "or charitable purposes."
LORD DENMANthought it would, perhaps, be better if the matter were discussed again on Third Reading. He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONmoved to amend Clause 14 by restricting the application of the Act to towns the population of which exceeded 2,000. They were, by this Bill, applying a number of provisions which might be absolutely useful and proper in the case of large manufacturing centres, but which were really inapplicable to small districts which in Ireland were regarded as towns, but which in fact were really villages. Under the Bill the rates of a particular district might be pledged for eighty years, and the limit of borrowing power laid down by Parliament for all other purposes might be exceeded; land might be taken outside the district on the security of the rates inside the district and might be let to companies or societies for this purpose. So far as small districts were concerned the matter was on a different footing from the case of great manufacturing towns, where these provisions might be necessary and desirable. A population of 2,000 in an Irish town very often meant not more than 300 or 350 houses, and that 38 number of votes elected the town commissioners. They all knew that the number of illiterate voters in Ireland was large, and it was obvious that the class of men appointed town commissioners in these places could not be a very exalted one. Yet they were to have power, by adopting the provisions of this Bill, to load the rates for a considerable number of years. There were between 100 and 120 towns in Ireland, and of those only about one-sixth would be cut out by the limitation in his Amendment. He would have placed the limitation higher, but he desired to make as small an exception as possible.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 8, line 9, after '1890,' to insert the words 'of any town the population of which, according to the last census, exceeds 2,000.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD DENMANsaid the Government were unable to assent to this Amendment. In their view such an arbitrary limit would cut out a number of towns which it was essential should come under the Bill. Though he did not say it was at all conclusive, the Return presented to their Lordships' House on the Motion of Lord Mayo giving the indebtedness of towns in Ireland showed that the small towns were in a much better position than the large towns as regarded their indebtedness. It appeared from the Return that the small towns in a great many cases had borrowed nothing at all, and in others they had not gone nearly up to the statutory limit; whereas with regard to large towns the reverse was often the case. Therefore he failed to see that the small towns would not be perfectly fitted to administer the Act.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped his noble friend would persevere with his Amendment, which was really of a very moderate character. As the noble Viscount had said, a town of 2,000 inhabitants would have, roughly, from 300 to 350 houses. Towns of that kind in Ireland were nearly always spread over a very large area, and therefore these facilities were not required. There were only twenty-four small towns which this Amendment would exclude. Therefore this was not an Amendment that would cut the heart, so to speak, out of the Bill. If he might descend into language which 39 Englishmen generally described as Irish, he would say that the Amendment did very little more than cut out twenty-four towns which were not towns at all. He would give their Lordships three examples. The town of Aughnacloy, in Tyrone, had 574 inhabitants and was spread over 156 acres; there were, therefore, about five inhabitants to the acre. Where was the necessity in that district for this Bill? Then there was the town of Bagenalstown, in County Carlow. This town had 882 inhabitants, spread over 744 acres. The town of Granard, in County Longford, had a population of 1,622, which worked out at an acre and a quarter per inhabitant. There could be no object in extending this Bill to such rural districts.
LORD DENMANasked their Lordships to look at the particular clause of the Bill and see the effect of the Amendment. Clause 14 enabled towns to adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890, in the same way that they could already adopt Part III. Part III. applied to the erection of workmen's dwellings, and Part II., he thought he was right in saying, applied to the demolition of those dwellings. Therefore what the House would be saying to these towns, if the Amendment were adopted, would be that because their population was below 2,000, although they might erect workmen's dwellings they might not demolish them. That really was the effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment, and he thought it was rather difficult logically to defend that position.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI should have thought? that the main argument in favour of my noble friend's Amendment was to be found upon the face of the Bill. The Bill is intituled—
An Act to provide further facilities for the erection of houses for the working classes in cities and towns in Ireland.What my noble friend says—and I think with truth—is that these smaller places cannot by any stretch of language be described as "cities" or "towns."
§ They really are villages inhabited by an agricultural population scattered over a very wide surface, and differing toto cœlo from urban population. In this case I am bound to say that it seems to me to be a complete misnomer to speak of a village which may have 300 or 350 houses as a city or town, and as entitled to the same kind of treatment as we are affording to larger cities and towns under this Bill.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThis is one of those cases where a limitation of figures is suggested and where it is always possible to find instances which suggest that some other figure ought to be named. We are familiar with that in a great many different connections, and it is perfectly possible, no doubt, as Lord Donoughmore did, to point out cases in which the provisions of this Act might not apply. On the other hand, nobody has stated that there are not places under the 2,000 limit in which some of these provisions might very usefully be applied. It is true the term "town commissioners" is, in a sense, an arbitrary one, and I am willing to admit that the provision does in certain cases apply to places which are not towns; but it has not by any means been made clear to me that there are not places under the 2,000 limit where the demolition of buildings and the erection of others might not very usefully be applied even by those very small communities. There will be, no doubt, cases in which the Act will not be applied, but that docs not constitute any particular hardship or grievance. It has not been suggested that attempts will be made to apply the Act improperly in these small places. Under these circumstances, and in view of the extreme difficulty of arriving at any dividing line other than that in the Bill, I am afraid we must continue to oppose the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed should stand part of the Clause,
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents,;35; Not-contents, 24.
41| CONTENTS. | ||
| Lansdowne, M. | Camperdown, E. | Dartrey, E. |
| Salisbury, M. | Cawdor, E. | Pembroke and Montgomery, E. |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Avebury, L. | Lawrence, L. [Teller.] |
| Westmeath, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Wicklow, E. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Sanderson, L. |
| Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) | Shute, L. (V. Barrington.) | |
| Hood, V. | Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
| Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore). | Clonbrock, L. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Dunboyne, L. | ||
| Ellenborough, L. | Stanmore, L. | |
| Addington, L. | Hindlip, L. | Waleran, L. |
| Ashbourne, L. | Inchiquin, L. | Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) |
| Atkinson, L. | Lamington, L. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | Herschell, L. |
| Lucas, L. | ||
| Wolrerhampton, V. (L. President.) | Allendale, L. | Lyveden, L. |
| Armitstead, L. | Marchamley, L. | |
| Colebrooke, L. [Teller.] | O'Hagan, L. | |
| Crowe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) | Courtney of Penwith, L. | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Denman, L. [Teller.] | Shuttleworth, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.) | Fitzmaurice, L. | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Carrington, E. | Glantawe, L. | |
| Craven, E. | Hamilton, of Dalzell, L. | Welby, L. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONmoved the insertion of a clause defining the expression "working classes." He said he had altered the definition since the Committee stage in order to bring it into consonance with the Act of 1903.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 9, line 10, after '1878,' to insert the words 'The expression "working classes" shall 'include mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week, and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them.'"—(Viscount Midleton.).
LORD DENMANsaid the Government did not really see the necessity for the definition, but he would not oppose the insertion of the clause as now moved by the noble Viscount.
§ Bill to be read 3a on Thursday, the 12th of November, next, and to be printed as amended. [No. 214.]
§ House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.