Lords Sitting of 11 November 1909

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition in favour of; of the Lower Ward of Renfrewshire Agricultural Society; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
FINANCE BILL.
Petitions against; of persons signing (72); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ROBERT GORDON'S TECHNICAL COLLEGE AND ABERDEEN ENDOWMENTS TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved to amend Clause 2 so as to provide that female asylum officers should be eligible for superannuation allowances on reaching the age of fifty, instead of fifty-five years. This was, he said, an Amendment that he had every intention of moving at an earlier stage of the Bill, but owing to a miscalculation of time on his part it did not appear on the Paper at the Report stage. It was something in the nature of a compromise. Their Lordships would remember that originally in the Bill it was provided that all officers should be eligible for superannuation at the age of fifty years, but owing to a little opposition on the part of Lord Belper, rather on the ground of economy and on behalf of the ratepayers of whose interests the noble Lord was so faithful a guardian, the age was altered to fifty-five years. But it was felt that in the case of women the age should be fifty years. The object of his Amendment was to enable women after long and arduous service to be superannuated at the age of fifty. He thought their Lordships would agree that female officers should be entitled to retire
548
at the age of fifty. Their temperament was not of such a robust character as that of male servants, and it was only fair that this preference of five years should be given to women.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 21, after the word 'old' to insert the words 'or in the case of females not less than fifty years old.'"—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said he not only accepted the noble Earl's Amendment, but he did so with pleasure. It was with the greatest regret that he had accepted Lord Belper's Amendment in Committee substituting the age of fifty-five for both men and women. The case of women in this connection was stronger than that of men, as was shown by the evidence before the Committee, from which it appeared that the number of breakdowns among women attendants greatly exceeded the number among men. He hoped the noble Earl would press the Amendment.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP) was sorry it was impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept this very serious alteration in the scheme of the Bill. It was serious not only in the way of making a considerable additional charge on the rates, but still more serious in the sense that it would introduce a wholly new principle into the pension schemes of this country. There was no pension scheme in which any distinction was made between men and women, either in this country or, he thought, in any other country. Their Lordships would probably agree that when a woman had reached the age of fifty years she was just as well able to look after lunatics for another five years as a warder who had reached the same age. He did not see that the charge of female lunatics was more arduous than the charge of male lunatics, and in view of the new principle in pension legislation which the Amendment would introduce he hoped their Lordships would not accept it.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER reminded the House that his Amendment was accepted without a Division and by the general consent of the House, and though the noble Lord in charge of the Bill now said that he accepted it with great regret, at all events he veiled that regret very satisfactorily at the time, because he did not speak against the Amendment. He (Lord Belper) had listened to hear what the arguments were

549
in favour of making the proposed distinction between male and female officers. He anticipated that the noble Earl who moved the Amendment would point out that the lives of women were much shorter than those of men, or that they were not able at this period of their lives to do their duty in as efficient a way as men. Nothing of the sort, however, had been contended, and therefore he agreed with the noble Earl the Lord Steward that there was no case for the proposed distinction. The age of fifty-five was inserted as a compromise, and he thought the age was a fair one both as regarded men and women and should be allowed to stand.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Verbal Amendment to Clause 2 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the two Amendments standing in his name to Clause 3 were not important ones, but it was desired to make the language of this clause correspond to the language of Clause 2, to which it referred, and these Amendments would effect that object.
Amendments moved—
"In page 3, line 6, to leave out 'a superannuation allowance is granted to'; and in line 7, after 'servant' to insert 'is entitled to receive or is granted a superannuation allowance.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Verbal Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved an Amendment in Clause 4—which gave power to the visiting committee to grant a gratuity to the widow or children of an officer who, if he had not died in the service of the asylum, would have been qualified for a special superannuation allowance—empowering the visiting committee to grant either a gratuity or an annual allowance. He said their Lordships would remember that a short discussion took place on Report upon this clause, and that the noble Lord below the Gangway, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, moved an Amendment, of which he had not given notice, to an Amendment which appeared on the Paper. Lord Clifford then moved to leave out the words "an annual allowance or," and, as he thought often happened in those circumstances, it was difficult for their Lordships, although they
550
accepted Lord Clifford's proposal, entirely to appreciate the full effect of an Amendment of that kind. His Majesty's Government, on consideration, were anxious to persuade their Lordships to reinsert these words in the Bill. The object, he thought, was quite clear. There were oases in which it was only fair that the visiting committee should have the power of giving not only a gratuity but also an annual allowance to these people. Their Lordships had already, in subsection (4) of Clause 2, given power to grant pensions to officers permanently incapacitated, and to ask their Lordships also to give an annual allowance as proposed in cases where officers had been killed was, after all, only a necessary consequence to the previous power, to which no objection was taken by the noble Lord below the Gangway. There very likely would arise a case in which a sum of money down would not be a sufficient recognition to make of an officer who had gallantly lost his life in the service of the visiting committee. He did not think they could anticipate that there would be many such cases. Only one or two had occurred in the whole year throughout the police force of the United Kingdom, and there would be even fewer under this Bill. He therefore hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 40, after 'granted,' to insert 'an annual allowance or.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said his objection to the words "annual allowance" was that they introduced an entirely new feature. The Bill up to the point when these words were proposed the other night limited its action entirely to a gratuity to widows and children and an annuity to the actual officers and servants. The Report stage was the first occasion upon which the subject of an annual allowance was brought up, and he then appealed to their Lordships whether in those circumstances it was not quite justifiable to call attention to so radical an innovation. The clause as it originally came to their Lordships' House provided that it should be competent for asylum managers to grant, at their discretion and on such terms as they thought fit, a gratuity to the widow and children of an established officer or servant who died whilst in the service of the asylum, and who, if he had retired at the time of his death, would have been entitled to a superannuation

551
allowance. The Amendment to which he had objected, and which the noble Earl now proposed to reinsert, enabled the asylum authority to give to the widow and children of an officer or servant dying in the service of the establishment not merely a gratuity but a pension. It was called an annual allowance, but the limit was practically equal to the original pension granted in the case of the actual officer on being superannuated. He contended that that was an alteration in the principle of the Bill which it was not proper to introduce at so late a stage, and their Lordships had acquiesced with him in that sentiment. Now it was proposed to reinsert the words. He left the matter entirely in their Lordships' hands, but he must say that the innovation was a very serious one, and one that ought not to be introduced at a late stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 6 agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend Clause 6—
6. All services by an established officer or servant in an asylum shall be aggregated and reckoned for the purposes of this Act, whether the services have been continuous or not, and whether they have been rendered at one or more asylums: Provided that no service which is not continuous for at least two years under one local authority shall be so reckoned,
by deleting the proviso at the end and inserting a new proviso. He said the proviso as it stood in the Bill was an Amendment inserted in Committee on the motion of Lord Belper, and modified by the addition of words moved by Lord Monk Bretton on Report. There was no objection to the objects which the noble Lords had in view, but he proposed to redraft the section in the form in which it appeared on the Paper. He did not think there would be any objection to that.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, to leave out lines 18 and 19, and to insert 'Provided that where an officer or servant of an asylum has removed to another asylum, not being an asylum provided by the same local authority, his services in the first asylum shall not be so aggregated and reckoned unless they amount to at least two years service and in the case of an officer or servant who has removed to another asylum after the commencement of this Act, unless he has removed with the written sanction of the visiting committee of the asylum from which he removed.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Verbal Amendments to Clause 7 agreed to.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to amend Clause 9—
9. The percentage amounts to be deducted annually for the purposes of this Act shall be as follows (that is to say):—
In the case of officers and servants with less than five years service at the passing of this Act, or appointed after the passing of this Act, two per cent. of his salary or wages and emoluments for each year;
In the case of officers and servants with more than five and less than fifteen years service at the passing of this Act, two and a-half per cent. of the salary or wages and emoluments for each year;
In the case of officers and servants with more than fifteen years service at the passing of this Act, three per cent. of the salary or wages and emoluments for each year,
by omitting the words "or appointed after the passing of this Act." The object of the Amendment was, he said, to provide that persons entering asylum service after the passing of this Act should pay a contribution to the pension fund of three per cent. instead of two per cent. of their salary. He admitted that it was not desirable to move Amendments at a late stage of the Bill which should have been moved earlier if it was possible to avoid it; but his attention had been called to the fact that while the benefits under this Bill were much more liberal than those under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, two per cent. was the same contribution as was paid by Poor Law officers under that Act. Therefore the effect would be that the surplus which had to be provided by the local authority would cause a heavier charge upon the rates than in the cases where the benefits were less and where the contribution was the same. He did not propose to interfere in any way with the amount that the present officers had to contribute, but it was proposed by his Amendment to increase the amount that future officers should contribute from two per cent. to three per cent. In the circumstances, considering that the benefits were considerable under the Bill and larger than under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, he thought it was only fair to make this small alteration.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 9, to leave out the words 'or appointed after the passing of this Act.'"—(Lord Belper.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said this was an Amendment to which His Majesty's Government would give a cordial approval. Their Lordships would see that this was a case

553
dealing with people who entered the service after the date of the passing of the Act. Therefore they were not taking away from anybody at present in the service of a visiting committee any privilege which he or she enjoyed at the present time. The scale of pensions provided in the Bill was so liberal that it was thought that three per cent. was not an unfair contribution to ask from these officers. The experience of the Metropolitan Police Fund and other funds was that large deficits had to be made up out of the rates. Therefore he thought three per cent. was not an unfair contribution to ask from future officers.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said the promoters of the Bill accepted with very great regret the Amendment which was moved in Committee by Lord Belper and which retarded pensions from the age of fifty to fifty-five. Now this was another blow to be dealt to the Bill. By the Amendment the contribution was to be raised from two to three per cent. He felt it very difficult to accept the Amendment, even after what had been said on behalf of His Majesty's Government. Lord Belper had quoted the case of Poor Law officers, but the whole point of this Bill was that asylum officers were engaged in a dangerous profession, whereas Poor Law officers were not. After what had fallen from the noble Earl and the warnings he had received he was not going to press his opposition to the Amendment, but he desired to say that, though he had twice resisted an Amendment moved by Lord Donoughmore to the effect that the basis for calculating the pensions should be the last five years of service and not the last ten years of service, as in the Bill, he reserved to himself, if he did not resist the present Amendment, the right to accept Lord Donoughmore's Amendment later and substitute five years for ten years.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 10 agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after Clause 12, the following new clause—
13. Where, by virtue of any award made under section sixty-two of the Local Government Act, 1888, or section two hundred and forty-four of the
554
Lunacy Act, 1890, any liability is imposed on any county council or the council of any county borough to contribute to any superannuation allowances granted to any officer or servant or servant of an asylum, such liability shall, unless and until otherwise provided by subsequent award, agreement, or otherwise, continue in the same manner and to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed, and any sums payable under any such award in respect of any such liability shad be paid to the visiting committee of any such asylum in lieu of the county council or the council of any county borough to whom the same would otherwise be payable.
He said he was sorry to trouble their Lordships with such an obscure Amendment at this stage, but it was owing to its obscurity that it had not been raised before. The point to be met was this. Let them assume that a corporation and a county council owned an asylum together and that the asylum became too small and the county council and corporation separated. There were duties to give pensions on both local authorities, and consequently under the existing law awards were made under which, let them say, the county council had to pay to the corporation such sums as would enable the whole of the pensions due to be paid. Under this Bill the visiting committee and not the local authority were made the responsible authority for giving pensions, and therefore awards which had been made and which obliged one local authority to pay another local authority were vitiated by the visiting committee being made the authority. The county council might refuse to pay the corporation under the award because the visiting committee was the authority, and it was to remedy this that his proposed new clause was drafted. He was afraid his Amendment was not correct as it stood, but he would not trouble their Lordships to make any change in the Amendment had he not the authority both of the Lunacy Commissioners and of His Majesty's Government in the proposed amendment to the Amendment which he was about to suggest. Clause 19 of the Bill provided that repeals under this Bill should not affect the payment of any superannuation allowance granted before the commencement of the Act. Therefore existing pensions and the machinery under which they were paid in this peculiar case were safeguarded, but what were not safeguarded were future payments. He therefore hoped their Lordships would insert this clause. But as the words "such liability" would refer to existing pensions as well as to future pensions, he asked permission to amend the last five lines of his Amendment, so

555
that, after the words "and to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed," the clause would run: "provided that any sums payable under any such award in respect of superannuation allowance granted under this Act shall be paid to the visiting committee of any such asylum in lieu of the county council or the council of any county borough to whom the same would otherwise be payable."
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 12 to insert the following new clause—
'13. Where, by virtue of any award made under section sixty-two of the Local Government Act, 1888, or section two hundred and forty-four of the Lunacy Act, 1890, any liability is imposed on any county council or the council of any county borough to contribute to any superannuation allowances granted to any officer or servant of an asylum, such liability shall, unless and until otherwise provided by subsequent award, agreement, or otherwise, continue, in the same manner and to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed, provided that any sums payable under any such award in respect of superannuation allowance granted under this Act shall be paid to the visiting committee of any such asylum in lieu of the county council or the council of any county borough to whom the same would otherwise be payable.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said His Majesty's Government would be very glad to see this clause inserted in the Bill, especially in the amended form in which the noble Lord had moved it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the two Amendments standing in his name to Clause 14 were Amendments to which His Majesty's Government attached a good deal of importance. As the clause stood at present, it would enable asylum officers to appeal to the Secretary of State not merely as to the amount of the pensions to which they were legally entitled, but also on questions whether the visiting committee had treated them fairly in cases where the amount of the pension was left to the discretion of the visiting committee. He thought when the visiting committee were given a discretion of this kind it was not desirable that there should always be a power of appeal to the Secretary of State. This was one of those matters which they might safely leave the local authority to deal with. His Amendment would have the effect of enabling an asylum servant to appeal as to the amount of pension to which he was entitled, but would
556
not permit him to appeal on questions as to the way in which the visiting committee had exercised a discretion now entrusted to them by law.
Amendments moved—
"In page 8, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words 'or amount of'; and in line 29, after 'asylum' to insert 'or as to the amount of the superannuation allowance to which any such officer or servant is entitled.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment to Clause 15. The clause ran—
15. The salary or wages and emoluments of an established officer or servant shall, for the purpose of computing the amount of a superannuation allowance or gratuity, be calculated according to the average amount of his salary or wages and emoluments during the ten years ending on the quarter day which immediately precedes the day on which he ceases to hold his office or employment, or, in the case of an officer or servant with less than ten years service, on the average amount during his whole period of service; and the expression "emoluments" includes all fees, poundage and other payments made to any established officer or servant as such for his own use, and also the money valve of any apartments, rations, or other allowances in kind appertaining to his office or employment.
The annual money value of all such fees, poundage and other payments, apartments, rations, or other allowance in kind shall be set out in a schedule to be prepared by the visiting committee of every asylum and affixed in a conspicuous place in the asylum.
The noble Earl proposed to leave out "ten years" ["be calculated according to the average amount of his salary or wages and emoluments during the ten years"] and to substitute "five years." He said this was the Amendment to which Lord Monk Bretton had already referred, and which provided that the pensions were to be calculated on the average salary of the last five years instead of on the average salary for the last ten years, as in the Bill. He had moved this Amendment twice before, and would not have ventured to bring it again before the House but for the fact that the circumstances were entirely altered by the Amendment raising the contribution from two per cent. to three per cent. He claimed that the fact that the contribution had been so raised did very much increase the necessity for this Amendment. He would not go again over the ground which he had covered previously in moving the Amendment, but would merely remind their Lordships that Mr. Byrne, of the Home Office, had very strongly supported the

557
period of five years in his evidence before the Select Committee, and in doing so he was merely recommending to the Select Committee the following of precedents. Those precedents were a great many more in number than he was aware of when he moved the Amendment in Committee, and he had in his hand a list of six Superannuation Acts in which the period of five years had been adopted.
Their Lordships would remember that almost the sole ground upon which the Amendment was resisted at previous stages was that the cost to the rates would be too great, in view of the very small contribution—two per cent.—which was to be made by the officers. That contribution had now been raised to three per cent. and he claimed that that was a very strong reason why the period should now be reduced. A case had been drawn up in the offices of the London County Council which would show how the proposal in the Bill and the proposal in his Amendment would work. The ten years average was not likely to affect a higher official, who would always have been drawing his maximum salary for ten years prior to his retirement; his pension would, therefore, not be affected whether it was calculated on the average salary for his last five or ten years. But he was assured that if the Bill remained in its present form it would to a very large extent affect the pensions of the lower officers, men to whom a small difference in pension was much more serious than it would be in the case of the higher officials.
He was assured that the following case illustrated what would happen. A male attendant entered the London service, and was classed at first as a second-class attendant. He received, after six months probation, £31 a year, his salary rising by annual increments of £1 to £40; the officer was also, of course, allowed board, lodging and washing. Therefore, he took nine years to arrive at the maximum of a second-class attendant's wages, and he might remain in this position for many years awaiting a vacancy as a first-class, or what was known technically as a charge attendant. When he was thus appointed he commenced at £40 and proceeded by annual increments of £1 to £50. Therefore, the man joined, let him say, at twenty-five as a second-class attendant; he would reach his maximum pay as a second-class
558
attendant at thirty-four; he remained in that position for ten years, and was then made a charge attendant and did not reach his maximum of £50 until he was fifty-four years of age. At fifty-five he retired, and his pension for thirty years service was then calculated under the Bill on his average salary during his last ten years service. That average would work out at £46 8s., whereas the average for the previous five years would work out at £48 16 s. In each case there would have to be added £39 for emoluments—board, uniform, lodging, and washing. The pension would then work out at £51 4s. 9d. on a ten years calculation, and at £52 13 s. 7d. on a five years calculation. The difference was a very small one to the authorities concerned, but the sum was by no means a negligible one to an officer drawing a pension of about £1 a week. Under the present London County Council scale this man's pension would be £59 6s. 9d. Therefore, future officers were not going to be treated as well as past officers. He appealed to their Lordships to substitute five years for ten years. Five years was the period recommended by the Select Committee. He believed the period of ten years was absolutely without precedent. It certainly was contrary to the system under which the officials of whom he had been speaking at present served. The noble Earl the Lord Steward, in resisting Lord Shaftesbury's Amendment earlier in the evening, objected then to the introduction of a wholly new principle. He (Lord Donoughmore) was surprised but gratified to see that sign of Toryism in his noble friend opposite. He hoped he would retain it, and that His Majesty's Government would see their way not to oppose this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 36, to leave out 'ten' and to insert 'five.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON merely wished to add to what he had already said on this point, that as their Lordships had advanced the age to fifty-five that minimised very much the effect of the noble Earl's Amendment, because a large number of asylum workers reached their top pay at the age of forty-five.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that in considering this matter their Lordships should remember that this question of five years

559
or ten years did not stand alone. They also had to consider the scale of pensions. Pensions for first-class officers were by this Bill based on a scale of fiftieths. In those circumstances it was thought not unfair that a period of ten years should be taken. If instead a scale of sixtieths had been inserted, then he thought there would have been a good deal to be said for the noble Earl's request that five years should be substituted. In the circumstances he was afraid the Government must stand by the provisions of the Bill as they stood. It had been suggested that, in view of the willingness of noble Lords who promoted
Amendment negatived accordingly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend the definition in Clause 16—
"Established officer or servant" means such officer or servant as has the care or charge of the
the Bill to accept the three per cent., His Majesty's Government might fairly give way on this question of the ten years, but they were unable to effect a compromise of that kind. He hoped their Lordships would support His Majesty's Government in this effort, small though it might be, to protect the ratepayers.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 69; Not-contents, 40.
patients or whom the visiting committee of an asylum shall by resolution determine to be an established officer or servant,

CONTENTS

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Iveagh, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Morley of Blackburn, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Abinger, L.

Lyveden, L.

Northumberland, D.

Allendale, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Armitstead, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bath, M.

Avebury, L.

North, L.

Camden, M.

Belper, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Blythswood, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Brassey, L.

Pentland, L.

Camperdown, E.

Burghclere, L.

Poltimore, L.

Carrington, E.

Camoys, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Cathcart, E.

Clinton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Clarendon, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Rothschild, L.

Cromer, E.

Colebrooke, L.

St. David's, L.

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

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Saltoun, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Sanderson, L.

Liverpool, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Lovelace, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Mayo, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Elphinstone, L.

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

Wharncliffe, E.

Farrer, L.

Glantawe, L.

Waleran, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Walsingham, L.

Falkland, V.

Hastings, L.

Wenlock, L.

Goschen, V.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Newcastle, D.

Churchill, V.

Colchester, L.

Hood, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.

Salisbury, M.

Hindlip, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Carnwath, E.

Addington, L.

Middleton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Aldenham, L.

Monk Bretton, L. [Teller.]

Dartrey, E.

Alverstone, L.

Rathmore, L.

Devon, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Eldon, E.

Bagot, L.

Sandys, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Barrymore, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Lytton, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sinclair, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sudeley, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ventry, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Clonbrock, L.

by inserting, after the words "means such officer or servant," the words "employed in a permanent capacity."
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 15, after 'servant,' to insert 'employed in a permanent capacity.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE asked if the Bill as it stood would apply to anybody who was not employed in a permanent capacity.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the object of inserting the words was to prevent friction and disputes arising in the future.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON hoped the chaplain would not be cut out of the Bill by this Amendment. The chaplain to an asylum ran considerable danger although not permanently employed in the institution.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND) moved to amend Clause 17 by providing that the Act should come into operation in Scotland on May 15, 1910. This was, he said, the beginning of the financial year of local authorities in Scotland.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 36, at the beginning of the line to insert 'This Act shall come into operation in Scotland on the 15th day of May, 1910, and.'"—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment to Clause 18 with the object of preserving the right of existing officers in Ireland to an appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in the event of their being required to retire under this Act. He explained that, previous to the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898, all officers in lunatic asylums in Ireland had the privilege, if dismissed or pensioned, of appealing to the Lord Lieutenant. That power was done away with in 1898, but the rights of existing officers were preserved. They were anxious that the rights of those existing officers should be preserved under this Bill just as they were in the Act of 1898. That was only plain justice, and he hoped the House would accept his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, after line 29, to insert. 'A requirement to retire under section eleven of this Act shall, in its application to an established officer or servant who is an existing officer within the meaning of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, be subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment in Clause 20 (Short title and commencement of Act) providing that the measure should come into operation on April 1 instead of March 31, 1910. The financial year began on April 1, and it would be more convenient that the Act should come into force at the beginning of the financial year rather than on the last day of the preceding financial year.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 28, to leave out 'thirty,' and to leave out 'March' and insert 'April.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended (No. 225.)

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &c., BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Consequential Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, communications are proceeding in respect of this Bill. They have not yet been concluded, and it is thought not to be in the best interests of the measure to proceed with its consideration at present. In these circumstances I suggest that your Lordships should postpone the consideration of the Amendments for the present.
Order discharged.

SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Consequential

563
Amendment and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (143) House and Rating (Scotland) Bill, as first printed for the House of Lords.
The Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics.]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 17, 18, and 19, and insert ("and in the case of burghs with a "population of five hundred thousand or upwards "means a dwelling-house entered in the valuation "roll at a yearly rent or value of twenty pounds or "under;")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:—
Line 1, leave out ("five hundred") and insert ("fifty")
Line 3, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("twenty-one")
LORD PENTLAND: I move, with regard to the first Amendment of the Commons, to leave out "five hundred" and insert "fifty," that this House agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
LORD CLINTON: The figures in the Bill to which the Commons object were inserted by your Lordships after very careful consideration and after consultation with the burghs, and they were put in on the understanding that they covered practically the whole of the working-class houses in burghs. I therefore submit that we are entitled to some reason why the Government refuse to assent to our Amendment.
LORD PENTLAND: I shall be glad to give the Government's reasons; but when the matter was last before your Lordships it was fully discussed, and I thought I then described at length the position of the Government towards the noble Lord's proposals.
LORD CLINTON: The figures now inserted in the House of Commons by order of the Government are not those which appeared in the original Bill. The Government had, I admit, gone a certain distance to meet us, because they no longer fix £26 as the limit; but I think that in this matter they might have given more consideration to Scottish opinion expressed clearly by the burghs of Scotland. I admit that the matter of rental is not a point which can be regarded as vital, but still it is
564
important, and I am sorry the Government should not have further considered the views that were put forward on behalf of the burghs in this matter.
LORD PENTLAND: I do not think it is at all clear that the Government have not further considered the views which the noble Lord and those who acted with him put forward. The Government have considered those views carefully. The complaint is that the Government have not accepted them; but, as the noble Lord admitted, we have made an approximation to his views. Nor can I admit that in one direction the Government have not been in touch with the burghs, or that the burghs are strongly dissatisfied with the change effected by the Commons Amendment. This change was made in the Bill some days ago. The burghs are by no means reluctant to approach the Scottish Office on other matters. But no substantial objection has been taken to what is now proposed.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that the burghs have taken no substantial objection, but your Lordships must remember that this Bill emanated originally from Glasgow and the West of Scotland and that all the other burghs in Scotland were opposed to the views taken by Glasgow. The words "five hundred thousand" population meant Glasgow alone, and the reason why that was inserted was that Edinburgh wished for £15, as also did Dundee and Aberdeen, and I know that Aberdeen wishes for the figure of £15 at this moment. The Government propose to make a different arrangement. They propose that in all burghs which have a population of over 50,000 the yearly rental or value should be £21, and the effect of that is to include the five largest burghs which are known as the scheduled burghs—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and Greenock. Of those, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen, if they had their own way, would prefer the figure of £15. But besides those scheduled burghs there are four others—Govan, Patrick, Paisley, and Leith. I admit, if you are going to have a figure of £21 in Glasgow, that Govan and Patrick being adjacent there are possible inconveniences in having a different figure there, and to that extent there is something to be said for what the noble Lord proposes. It is for that reason, and not because I think

565
these figures really meet the wishes of these towns, that I hope in the circumstances the Commons Amendment will not be opposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: I move, with regard to the next Amendment, substituting "twenty-one" for "twenty," that this House agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This is a very small and, prima facie, peddling Amendment, and surely the noble Lord should give us some reason for it.
LORD SALTOUN: I was in Aberdeen only yesterday and saw several gentlemen who are interested in this Bill, and they were unanimously of opinion that £21 would include houses very much over what could be regarded as working-class houses. Why has the figure been changed? There must be some reason for it, and I think the noble Lord should state it.
LORD PENTLAND: There is no secret about this, and I shall be glad to give such explanation as I can. This matter was carefully considered in another place, and it was pressed upon the Government that the figure of £21 would be a more convenient figure than that of £20. In-habited house duty is levied on houses of a certain rental, and £21 would safely cover the limit desired. That is the reason for the change. The Government, as the noble Lord knows, were even reluctant to come down so low as £21, particularly in the case of Glasgow.
LORD SALTOUN: The explanation is, in my opinion, a lame one, but I do not think we shall consider the point a vital one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendments.
Clause 2, page 1, line 21, leave out ("a parish council")
Clause 2, page 1, line 22, after ("assessment")
insert ("except a parish council")
After clause 20 insert the following new clause—
C. Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice
566
or affect the provisions of section seventy-two of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847.
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reasons:—
Because if the arrangements for the collection of municipal rates proposed in Clause 12 as amended by the Lords are required for the purpose of facilitating the object of the Bill, viz., the creation of a system of short lets, similar arrangements are equally necessary for the collection of poor rates, education rates, and other rates levied by parish councils, and for the collection of water rates.
LORD PENTLAND: I move that this House do not insist on the first Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: We have had no reason yet for the disagreement to our Amendment striking out "a parish council." We struck those words out on the ground that they ought not to have been inserted at all, because this was a Bill which had to do with house letting and municipal rates, whereas parish councils have to do with poor rates. This Amendment is a very important one. It raises the question whether the parish councils, which collect the parish rates, are to be put on the same footing as the municipalities which collect the municipal rates.
LORD PENTLAND: I moved the motion formally because I did not imagine for one moment that the noble Earl would desire any explanation on behalf of the Government as to the treatment of these particular words. This has been discussed at every stage of the Bill, and the Government's attitude has never varied in this or the other House. I was considerate of the time of your Lordships in merely moving that this House should not insist on its Amendments in this respect.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As the noble Lord does not give any reasons but merely moves the Motion, I presume that the reasons are those which are printed on the Paper—namely, that the Commons disagree to our Amendments because if the arrangements for the collection of municipal rates proposed in Clause 12 as amended by your Lordships are required for the purpose of facilitating the object of the Bill—viz., the creation of a system of short lets—similar arrangements are equally necessary for the collection of poor rates, education rates, and other rates levied by parish councils, and for

567
the collection of water rates. Therefore your Lordships will see that our Amendments are objected to by the Commons on the ground of rates, and for no other reason. In proposing to place parish councils upon the same footing as municipalities your Lordships are being asked to make a very important change in the law. At the present time municipalities collect their rates under Section 345 of the Burgh Police Act, and when the occupier has been asked to pay his rates and has failed to do so, then recourse is had to the owner. Therefore a municipality at this moment has the right ultimately to have recourse to the owner. A parish council is in a different position altogether. They collect the occupier's rates from the occupier and from the occupier alone, and if he does not pay the rate is lost. Therefore your Lordships will see that you are asked, not merely to place the parish councils on the same footing as municipalities, but to give parish councils a most important power which they do not now possess—a drastic power of applying to the owners. The noble Lord urged the case for the parish councils very strongly when the Bill was before us, and your Lordships took the view, which I adhere to, that in giving this power to parish councils the law was being altered in a way in which you do not propose to alter it for anybody else. For the first time they will have access to the owner. We on this side are anxious to go as far as we possibly can with the Government in facilitating the collection of rates and thereby increasing, as we hope, the number of private arrangements; and although we are not unwilling to accede to this great change, it is on the understanding that the conditions which govern the franchise at present are not in any way interfered with. I do not know which will be the most convenient way of taking the question. Perhaps I had better wait until my Amendment is reached. Therefore while not at this stage opposing the reinsertion of the words "parish council" or the other Amendment, the noble Lord will understand that we do so on the distinct understanding that we are going hereafter to limit the matter to the question of the collection of rates—the only reason given by the House of Commons for their disagreement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: I now move that
568
the House do not insist on the second Amendment inserting the words "except a parish council."
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): The Commons disagree to the new clause inserted after Clause 20, that—
"Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the provisions of section seventy-two of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847."
LORD PENTLAND: I move that the House do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Lord give some reason?
LORD PENTLAND: The clause was inserted to clear up a doubt as to the effect of the changes in this Bill upon the provisions in the Water Works Clauses Act, 1847, and on examination the Government are of opinion that the clause is not necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Government think that the persons concerned would not be affected by this Bill if the clause is omitted?
LORD PENTLAND: That is so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Leave out clauses 12 to 17, and insert the following new clause A—
A. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions with regard to the liability for and the imposition and recovery by, an assessing authority of any assessment of all Acts applicable within the respective burghs in which this Act may be in operation shall subsist in full force and effect, provided that in the application of sections three hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, in any burgh which, at the date of the census of nineteen hundred and one, contained a population of fifty thousand or upwards, the following provisions shall apply and have effect (that is to say):—
(1) Section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, shall be read and construed as if the following provision were added thereto and contained therein (that is to say):—
Provided that where small dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Small Dwelling-Houses in Burghs Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1909,

569
are let for a year or longer and the rent is payable or paid more frequently or at shorter intervals than once in three months, such dwelling-houses shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to be let for less than a year.
(2)—(i) Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses, allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and paid by them in place of the occupiers, under and in terms of section three hundred and forty-five or section three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended by any subsequent Act, a deduction to cover cost of collection and risk of loss on the following scale (that is to say):—

(A) Where the yearly rent or value entered on the valuation roll exceeds four pounds but does not exceed seven pounds, seven and one-half per centum;

(B) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds seven pounds but does not exceed ten pounds, live per centum; and

(C) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds ten pounds but does not exceed the limit of rental fixed by this Act, three per centum:

Provided that, after such scale of deduction has been in operation in any such burgh for a period of not less than three years, it shall be competent for the assessing authority, or for any ten or more persons having an interest, to present a petition to the sheriff for reconsideration of such scale, and the decision of the sheriff, after such intimation by advertisement or in such other manner as he thinks fit, and after such inquiry, if any, as he may deem necessary, shall be final, but after the expiry of a period of not less than five years from the date of such decision, and thereafter at intervals of not less than five years from the date of the final interlocutor by the sheriff on the reconsideration of such scale, the scale may, subject to like procedure, be resubmitted to the sheriff for reconsideration.

(ii) Every such owner shall have relief against the occupiers for the full amount of such assessments without deduction.

(iii) Every such owner shall have the same claims and remedies for recovery from the occupiers of such assessments and rent as for the recovery of rent alone.

(3)—(i) Notwithstanding the payment by the owner of occupiers' assessments in respect of the occupancy of a small dwelling-house, if any small dwelling-house in respect of which such payment has been made shall not be let or occupied for the whole period for which assessments have been paid, the owner shall, upon lodging, on or before dates to be fixed by the respective assessing authorities, with the clerk to any such authority, or with such other officer as such authority may appoint for the purpose, a claim therefor, which shall set forth the period or periods during which the small dwelling-house was not let or occupied and a declaration to the effect that no rent or other consideration was due or was or is to be paid or given for such period or periods, be entitled to repayment from such authority of the proportionate amount of such assessments for the said period or periods.

(ii) In the case of any small dwelling-house appearing in the valuation roll as unlet, the owner, on receipt of a requisition from an assessing authority shall forthwith furnish such authority with a return containing particulars of any period or periods during which such small dwelling-house has been let or occupied, and the owner shall be
570
liable to pay the proportionate amount of assessments for the said period or periods as if such small dwelling-house had not appeared in the valuation roll as unlet.

(iii) Any owner knowingly making or causing to be made any false statement in or in connexion with any claim, declaration, or return under this section, or failing to make any such return, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:—
Line 5, leave out from ("that") to ("where") in line 15 and insert—

(a) The provisions of section three hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, shall apply to every assessment leviable within any such burgh by any assessing authority other than a town council in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses with the substitution of such assessment and authority for the burgh general assessment and the town council respectively;

(b) Section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as applying or applied (whether under the existing law or under the immediately preceding provision) within every burgh which at the date of the Census of 1901 contained within the police boundaries thereof a population of fifty thousand or upwards, and within any other burgh in which this Act is in operation, and the town council of which by resolution so decides, shall be deemed to incorporate the following provisions (that is to say):—

Line 17, after ("1909") insert ("here in after referred to as small dwelling-houses")
Line 21, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892")
Line 28, leave out ("as amended by any subsequent Act")
Line 32, leave out ("exceeds four pounds but")
Line 33, leave out ("seven and one-half") and insert ("ten")
Line 36, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven and one-half")
Line 59, after ("deduction") insert ("but such assessments shall only be recoverable by such owners from the occupiers along with payments of rent as such payments are fixed by the terms of let, and shall be paid by the occupiers only in amounts proportionate to the period for which rent is paid")
After clause A, as a consequential Amendment, insert the following new clause D:—
D. Every payment of on assessment by an owner under or in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding section shall, notwithstanding any deduction which the assessing authority is required to allow therefrom, be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification or franchise which depends on such payment. Provided that where an owner who is responsible therefor omits or neglects to pay any such assessment, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid. And provided further that all provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any franchise as aforesaid, although the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon.
LORD PENTLAND: I move that this House agree to the Commons Amendment in line 5, to leave out from "that" to "where" in line 15.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: These are substantial Amendments, and I hope the noble Lord will give us some reason for them and will explain why he proposes to leave out our words and to insert his words.
LORD PENTLAND: This is an old story, and it is a question as to the most convenient point at which to take the discussion. I took the early course of moving to agree with the Commons in order to indicate the position of the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: I move that the words proposed to be inserted by the Commons—namely, paragraphs (a) and (b)—be agreed to.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: I move that your Lordships agree to the two next Amendments—in line 17 and in line 21.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: These are, I understand, drafting Amendments?
LORD PENTLAND: Yes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend subsection (2)—(i) of the new Clause A inserted by the Lords—
(2)—(i) Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses, allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and paid by them in place of the occupiers, under and in terms of section three hundred and forty-five or section three hundred
572
and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended by any subsequent Act, a deduction to cover cost of collection and risk of loss on the following scale,
by omitting the words "levied on and." The noble Earl said: As the words stand, deductions would only be allowed in eases where the occupier failed to pay and the rate was actually levied upon the owner. I wish to facilitate private arrangements as far as possible, and therefore I propose to leave out these words. The effect of their omission will be that deductions will be allowed in cases where private arrangements have been made between owners and occupiers, as well as in cases where rates have been actually levied on the owners in default of occupiers.
Amendment moved—
"In new Clause A inserted by the Lords, line 24, to leave out ' levied on and.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl has been good enough to give me an opportunity of considering this matter. I have not been able to come to any definite conclusion as to how this Amendment would be viewed by local authorities in Scotland, but without committing the Government at this stage, I will not oppose the omission of the words at the moment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: I move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in their next Amendment—
Line 28, leave out ("as amended by any subsequent Act.")
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND moved that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment to omit the words "exceeds four pounds but" from paragraph (A) of the Lords Amendment—
(A) Where the yearly rent or value entered on the valuation roll exceeds four pounds but does not exceed seven pounds, seven and one-half per centum.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Here again I wish the noble Lord would give us some explanation. Though on the whole I do not propose to take any exception to the Amendment, its result is to make a considerable difference.
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Earl will remember that in England, where this system is more extensively in practice, the allowances are greater, and the Government at first preferred to leave the fixing of this allowance to the sheriff. This change simply means that the Government have seen their way to approximate in some degree to what the noble Earl himself laid down.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND LORD PENTLAND then moved that the House agree with the Commons in their next throe Amendments—namely, in lines 33, 36, and 59.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had an Amendment on the Paper to add to the new clause the following new subsection—
(4)—(i) If an owner who has undertaken by agreement with the occupier to pay any assessment on his behalf omits or neglects to pay it, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid.

(ii) An owner shall not be called upon nor be liable to pay any assessment on behalf of an occupier under or in virtue of the provisions of this section until after the twentieth day of June nest following the imposition of the assessment.

(iii) All provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any qualification or franchise, although the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon.

The noble Earl said: I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should take these three subsections separately. The object of the first subsection is this. I think it will frequently happen that an owner, where he has an occupier whom he can trust, will make a private arrangement with him that he will pay his rates; and if the owner neglects to do so, the occupier will receive due notice of this
574
neglect, and then it will be in his power to preserve his franchise by paying the rates. Then, of course, he will be entitled to deduct the amount from what he has to pay to the owner. That is the meaning of my first subsection.
LORD PENTLAND: I think possibly it would be better at this point that I should say a word on what I understand to be the cumulative effects of the noble Earl's proposals. It may be of use, I think, if I remind the House of the state in which this Bill originally left the House of Commons, and of the changes which have since been made in it in regard to the main matter which is in dispute between the Government and the Opposition. As the Bill originally left the House of Commons it contained provisions for compounding for all rates, including poor rates; and in regard to the effect upon the franchise it contained a definite provision that the non-payment by an owner of any assessment payable on behalf an occupier should not affect the occupier's right to be registered as a voter or to vote at any Parliamentary or other election.
Your Lordships substituted a new clause for the clauses relating to rating which the Bill contained when it left the House of Commons. This new clause provides that in certain cases owners are to be liable for occupiers' rates; but by excluding in a prior clause of the Bill the parish council from the definition of "assessing authority" your Lordships removed the question of the Parliamentary franchise entirely from the scope of the discussion. Upon this I make two observations. The Government cannot assent to the implication of this exclusion—namely, that the right to the Parliamentary franchise is properly based on personal payment of poor rate. And, apart from that question, which need not have been imported into this discussion, I wish to observe, in the second place, that by this exclusion of parish councils from the definition of "assessing authority," it was rendered impossible to adjust the interests of parish councils to the new system of short lets which this Bill seeks to introduce. The Government, naturally enough, I think, found themselves unable to accept the position that rates levyable by parish councils, which amount to nearly forty per cent. of the total of all rates, could be properly separated in treatment from other rates. They therefore, by the Amendments introduced on the Lords

575
Amendments in the House of Commons, restored the parish council to the definition of "assessing authority," and amended the new Clause 12 in such a way as to make it clearly applicable to parish councils among other assessing bodies. The noble Earl this afternoon assented, with qualifications, to the restoration of the parish council to the category of assessing authorities.
The question of the franchise still remained. Your Lordships by your Amendments had taken out of the Bill the provision safeguarding franchise rights as the Bill originally came before this House. The Commons did not press for the re-insertion of this provision, but they inserted instead a new Clause D, to which the noble Earl will presently take objection, the effect of which was to provide that when an owner pays occupiers' poor rates the payment is to cover successive occupations in the course of a year and to qualify the successive occupiers, so far as payment of poor rates is a qualification, for the exercise of the franchise. The effect of this provision is no doubt as in England, to enfranchise an occupier who may only have paid poor rate for part of the year—
LORD CLINTON: Or he may not have paid it at all.
LORD PENTLAND: Let me proceed. The effect of the provision is to enfranchise an occupier who may only have paid poor rate for part of the year in respect of the house which constitutes the qualification. That is precisely what is permitted under the existing law in England, and that is my answer to the noble Lord's interruption. A further question remained. Suppose the owner himself does not pay. In such a case the Government could not accept the position that the disqualification of the occupier should follow as a necessary consequence. They therefore introduced the closing words of the new Clause D, to which the noble Earl takes objection, providing for continuation of notices to occupiers of assessments in arrear, and they enabled the occupier to retain his franchise on payment of the rate which the owner had neglected to pay, and subsequently to recover the amount from the owner.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord will find that in paragraph (iii) of my Amendment.
LORD PENTLAND: I am aware of that, but I thought it better to review the whole field. The Government, in making these provisions, have copied as literally as circumstances would admit the provisions of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, which, as noble Lords who have followed this controversy well know, is the governing Statute in England; and if your Lordships will refer to the debates on the Bill you will find that the whole question now in dispute was discussed at length and a compromise effected on precisely the same basis as that which we now propose for Scotland, In 1869, as now, the Government were charged with introducing a Franchise Bill in disguise. I have repeatedly, in the discussions on this Bill, had an opportunity, which I have taken, of disavowing altogether the imputation that the Government had any intention in this matter of introducing a Franchise Bill. That charge is made now; it was made then in the case of England. But in spite of that, and in spite of the much greater interests involved in the application of this principle to England, the Bill to which I have referred passed. The position, therefore, is that your Lordships are denying to Scotland an advance in the law which Parliament forty years ago was willing to give, and did give, to those in precisely the same circumstances in England.
I have only seen this series of Amendments proposed by the noble Earl to-day, and it is a little difficult for me and for local authorities in Scotland to appreciate fully, on such short notice, the effect of the changes which he proposes. As I understand it, however, his proposal amounts to this: that in no circumstances will he accept payment of rates by an occupier as a qualification for the franchise in respect of a particular house unless the occupier has paid a whole year's poor rate upon that house, notwithstanding he may only have occupied it for part of the year. I hope I am not misunderstanding the noble Earl's intention, because it is really the critical point of our differences. It is provided also that an owner is not to be called upon or be liable to pay any assessment on behalf of an occupier under the section until after the 20th day of June next following the imposition of the assessment. What will be the effect of this provision? I am not quite sure that I understand it. It is not quite clear, and anything I have to say

577
now must, therefore, be subject to reconsideration; but it would seem that the effect will be that any occupier desiring to retain his franchise will be obliged, notwithstanding successive changes of occupation, to pay the entire poor rate for the house constituting the qualification, and that although he may have already paid his rates with his rent to the owner. For some months he may have been paying his poor rate with his rent in instalments. He may have to leave that house after having paid these instalments of poor rate with his rent. If he is to qualify for the franchise he will also have to pay the entire occupiers' poor rate in respect of that house for the year. That is the burden which the noble Earl's provisions seem to me to lay upon the occupier. I do not dogmatise upon the point, but that is what seems to me to be the position.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. But I understood we were going to discuss the three paragraphs in my new subsection in order, and for that reason I limited myself in what I said to paragraph (i). The noble Lord is now going into the whole matter. The intention of paragraph (ii) is to leave the law with regard to the franchise in the position that it is at this moment, and not to make any change. What I would point out is this, that if the change which the Government propose to make is made, it would be possible to call upon an owner, in default of payment by the occupier, to pay the poor rate, and thereby to qualify an occupier who might never repay him or might never pay any rate at all.
LORD PENTLAND: Of course, this is not a perfect world. The noble Lord has pointed out objections to the alteration, but the objections which he points out now were outweighed, in the opinion of Parliament, by the necessities and circumstances of the case in regard to England; and in 1869, as a solution of a controversy which had gone on for nearly three years, the Government, in spite of any such objections as the noble Earl has now pointed out, found themselves obliged, as a complement to any system of short lets for working-class houses, to make concurrent elasticity in this matter of the collection of rates. The effect of the rigidity which the noble Earl has insisted upon during the whole of these discussions is really to put as against the introduction of the short
578
let system in Scotland the whole penalty of disfranchisement.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, no.
LORD PENTLAND: The effect of the noble Earl's provision is to apply the whole leverage of the desire to retain the franchise against the system of paying rates with rent, which the clause specially introduces in order to facilitate short lets. You therefore take away with one hand what you give with the other. It is also faulty in so far as it leaves in doubt what is to happen if the owner, notwithstanding the present proposals, does pay his poor rate before the 20th day of June. Will the occupier, or will be not, be disfranchised in that case? Possibly the noble Earl will tell us; but the Government's proposals have been perfectly clear on this point all along. The noble Earl has assumed throughout these discussions the opinion of local authorities in Scotland. He has alluded to-day to the position of Glasgow. I have this afternoon received from the Glasgow Corporation this telegram—
"House Letting Bill, Glasgow Corporation desire in strongest terms to represent against proposal to be made in Lords by which owners cannot be called upon to pay till after 20th June next following imposition of assessment. This would hang up great part of rate collection till year following that for which assessment levied, involving some £300,000, and is unworkable.—Town Clerk."
That is not a final opinion. In the first place, we are not quite clear as to the noble Earl's intention. In the second place, the Glasgow Corporation may well be in doubt as to the effect of the words which embody his intention. But there is the opinion of the Glasgow Corporation on the proposals which the noble Lord now puts forward. I have another telegram also, from the Town Clerk of Glasgow, to this effect—
"House Letting Bill, It is thought here that the new clause to be proposed by Lord Camperdown would disfranchise—
not would forbid the enfranchisement, but would disfranchise—
large number of occupiers of small dwelling-houses."
On the whole, therefore, I must, on behalf of the Government, decline to agree with the changes which are row proposed in the Amendments made in this Bill in another place.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Does the noble Lord object to the first paragraph of my proposed new subsection?
LORD PENTLAND: I think my objection had better be to the whole of them, though there are differences in degree.
LORD CLINTON: The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has dwelt largely on the English model. We are dealing here with a purely Scottish system, and I do not think it is possible to bring the English system forward as a direct model, as in many respects it does not apply to Scotland at all. In the first place, the noble Lord has altered the rental of houses in this Bill until they largely exceed the ordinary rental of compounded houses in England. The ordinary rental in England, with the exception of London, and, I think, Liverpool, is £13. Corresponding towns under this Bill will have a limit of rental of £21. But apart altogether from that, there is a very much stronger objection. The Act of 1869 was the result of compromise. Does the noble Lord opposite understand from his English advisers that compounding has worked successfully in England? Every authority who has reported upon compounding in England has reported against it, whilst Miss Octavia Hill, than whom no one knows more of the life of the working-classes in England, has declared the system to be wholly demoralising. Are we to take this worn-out, objectionable system from England, and apply it to a bran-new system of letting in Scotland? This Bill came forward nominally as a house-letting Bill. We have no difference with the Government on that point. But, in order to carry out his short-letting principle, the noble Lord has stated that he must have a compounding system. We disagree with that statement.
LORD PENTLAND: May I point out that the noble Lord assents in a form to compounding?
LORD CLINTON: No, no. We went as far to compounding as it was possible for us to go, and framed the clause which is now in the Bill. This clause has nothing whatever to do with enfranchisement, and yet it carries out the noble Lord's idea of rate collection. But the Government refuse to accept this clause until they have added to it certain other clauses which would clearly enfranchise the occupiers throughout the country. We have tried to meet the noble Lord in every way, and we are now met with an objection
580
in toto to our clause unless it carries with it the principle of enfranchising those who do not pay the rates.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I confined myself in my remarks to paragraph (i) of my proposed new subsection. Shall I deal with the whole subsection in answer to the noble Lord's speech?
LORD PENTLAND: If you please.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The object of the second paragraph is to prevent any change in the conditions which accompany the Scottish franchise. The law is at present that an occupier's rates must have been paid before June 20 if that occupier's name is to be on the roll. The occupier may himself pay; then he is on the roll; or he may make an arrangement with the house owner to pay the rates for him; that would be a perfectly legal payment, and the occupier's name would be on the roll. What we object to is that the owner should be compelled to pay the rates of a man in whom, very likely, he has no trust, with regard to whom, perhaps, all he knows is that he has not paid his rates, and thereby he is made to qualify that man for the register. It is that alone to which we object. And when the noble Lord opposite says we are attacking the system of short lets, I can only reply that the question of rates has no more to do with short lets than with the moon. We are proposing to give to the parish council a power of ultimate recourse against the owner which they do not at present possess; and, in order to meet the objections which the Glasgow Corporation have indicated in the telegram read out by the noble Lord, I will introduce in paragraph (ii) after the first "assessment," the words "imposed by a parish council." What we are attacking is the giving of power to parish councils to call upon owners to pay rates in order to qualify the occupiers. We do not wish in any way to diminish the powers of the municipalities. Indeed, as a matter of fact we do not diminish them, because municipalities need not collect under this clause; they can collect under Section 345 of the existing Act. The noble Lord said that we had assented to compounding. We have assented to nothing of the sort. What we have assented to is a system under which the occupier is first applied to, and then, if he fails to pay, the owner is applied to. The distinction is that

581
under compounding the owner is directly applied to, but under the other system he is only ultimately responsible for the rates. Paragraph (iii) is simply a reproduction of the last proviso in the new Clause D proposed by the Commons, which I shall presently move to strike out.
Amendment moved—
"In new clause A inserted by the Lords, line 96, after paragraph (iii), to insert the following now subsection, viz.:—
'(4)—(i) If an owner who has undertaken by agreement with the occupier to pay any assessment on his behalf omits or neglects to pay it, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid.

(ii) An owner shall not be called upon nor be liable to pay any assessment imposed by a parish council on behalf of an occupier under or in virtue of the provisions of this section until after the twentieth day of June next following the imposition of the assessment.

(iii) All provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any qualification or franchise, although the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PENTLAND: I move that the House agree to the new Clause D inserted by the Commons.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, who had given notice to move the omission of the new Clause D proposed by the Commons, said: This proposed new clause provides that every payment of an assessment by an owner under or in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding section shall, notwithstanding any deduction which the assessing authority is required to allow therefrom, be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification or franchise which depends on such payment. My reason for objecting to that is the reason I gave to your Lordships a short time ago—that this subsection as it stands would empower the parish council to collect the rate from the owner compulsorily. That is why I propose to omit this provision. The new Clause D next provides that where an owner who is
582
responsible therefor omits or neglects to pay any such assessment, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner. The reason why I object to that is that under those words an interpretation would be imparted to Section 345 which I believe is contrary to the real meaning of the Act. I know that noble Lords hold that under Section 345 you can apply direct to the owner. All I can say is it never has been done, and it certainly is not the law at the present time. The only case which has been taken into Court went in the other direction. These words appear to me most objectionable, because they would construe the section the other way. The remaining proviso in the new Clause D is the one which I have inserted in my Amendment.
LORD PENTLAND: The Government are not in agreement with the noble Earl and would desire to agree with the Amendment of the Commons. But I do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division in the matter.
On Question, Motion to agree with the Commons in the said Amendment negatived.
A Committee appointed to prepare a reason for the Lords disagreeing to the said Amendment: The Committee to meet forthwith.

MOTOR CARS (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULA TION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I notice that the explanatory Memorandum which accompanied this Bill in the other House has been omitted, and therefore perhaps it would be as well that I should in a few words explain its provisions. The object of the Bill is to enable this country to become a party to an International Convention which has recently been concluded between various European Powers in order to facilitate the movement of motor cars from one country to another. By the Convention provision is made for the issue of travelling passes to motorists passing from their own to another country. These will admit the car and

583
driver without investigation or examination of the capacity of either. A car entering a foreign country will be allowed to carry the identification plates of the country of origin surmounted by an oval plate to indicate the country whose plates it bears. Your Lordships will see that by this reciprocal registration will be promoted. The operative part of the Bill—that is, subsections (a) and (b) of Clause 1—is concerned with meeting these two points. It is proposed that an Order in Council should be issued to deal with the detail of the subject, and the Bill will give authority for this being done. The Bill passed through the other House without opposition and it is hoped it will become law forthwith, so that the Convention may be ratified as soon as possible.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Allendale.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I desire to support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, which carries out resolutions arrived at by a conference, of which I was a member, held in Paris in October, and at which the Local Government Board, the Police authorities, and various Government Departments were represented. The object is to provide for the passage from country to country of motor cars, which has hitherto been a difficult problem, and also to provide a driving certificate which shall be accepted by the countries concerned. When I mention that all the principal countries of Europe were represented and have agreed to this convention, I am sure your Lordships will recognise the desirability that the Bill should pass as speedily as possible. As the Convention is to be signed on the sixteenth of this month, it is important that the Bill should go through rapidly. I therefore hope it will pass without opposition.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

COUNTY COUNCILS (MORTGAGES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I have another innocent little Bill here to which I
584
trust your Lordships will give the same support as you extended to the other Bill. The object of this measure is to remove a difficulty which county councils have experienced in raising loans under the Local Government Act, 1888. Section 69 of that Act enables a county council to borrow by means (1) of stock issued under the Act; (2) of debentures or annuity certificates under the Local Loans Act, 1875; and (3) if special reasons are shown, of mortgage in accordance with the Public Health Act, 1875. Subsection (9) provides that where a county council have borrowed by means of stock they shall not borrow by way of mortgage except for a period not exceeding five years. The result of the subsection is that where county councils have stock and borrow by way of mortgage, they must issue fresh stock at the end of the period of five years for which the mortgage is granted, although the loan may have many years to run. This is sometimes very inconvenient. This inconvenience has been pressed on the Board, particularly in connection with loans under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, on behalf of several county councils, and especially of Somerset. It has been urged that these loans might be excluded from the operation of the subsection. No advantage has been derived from the restriction, and the Bill proposes to repeal it altogether. The Bill passed the other House unopposed, and it is hoped it will become law this session.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Allendale.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. The present arrangement is manifestly inconvenient, and the Bill will be of great assistance to county councils, especially in transactions under the Small Holdings Act.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

TELEPHONES IN IRELAND.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what main telephone lines now exist in Ireland, and whether any steps are being taken to extend them over the country, I regret that the noble Earl who represents the Post Office in this House is

585
not in his place. I know he takes a great interest in this subject, and I am sure he would have endeavoured from his knowledge of Ireland to give as sympathetic an answer as possible, whereas the noble Lord who will reply can only give me the official answer with which he has been supplied. As far as I can make out, the principle on which telephonic communication has been developed in Ireland has been a very proper one. First of all, the large towns have been linked up. Dublin is connected with Belfast, Cork, and Limerick, and even with Galway, but so far as I can make out. Galway is the only town in the West which is in direct telephonic communication with London. I am aware that the Post Office must consider whether any extension of their lines is likely to be a commercial success, but I cannot help thinking that cause and effect are factors it is rather difficult to calculate. The time will be remembered when the production of the yellow envelope containing a telegram filled many old people with alarm. Now everybody regards a telegram with absolute composure, and I cannot help thinking that something of the same kind might be the case with regard to telephones, and that if they were available people would soon learn how useful they were and would be prompt to take advantage of them. As I have said, Galway is in direct communication with London, but I cannot understand why it is that no towns on the line between Dublin and Galway are in communication. For instance, the line must pass through Athlone and Athenry, but it is impossible to communicate with either of those places. I venture to suggest whether it would not be possible to open a telephone office at Athlone in the first place and see if it paid, and then gradually extend the system to Athenry and other places. I do not for a moment suggest that it is possible for the Post Office to extend a network of telephones over the whole of Ireland; but I am anxious to know whether the matter is being dealt with in a haphazard manner, or whether a system exists for the gradual development of telephone communication all over Ireland. I am sure the latter is the proper way to set to work. This communication would be most useful in time of peace, and it seems to me that it would be almost essential should we be unfortunately engaged in war.
LORD DENMAN: As the noble Lord
586
has told the House, this is a Post Office question, and not an Irish question, and it is only as the inefficient substitute for my noble friend Lord Granard that I am able to give the official answer with which I am supplied. The following are the main telephone lines in Ireland:—From Dublin northwards to Belfast and Londonderry, with exchanges at the principal intermediate towns; from Dublin southwards (1) to Maryborough, Mallow, and Cork; and (2) to Wicklow and Wexford; from Belfast lines run westward to (1) Magherafelt; (2) Omagh and Enniskillen; and (3) Armagh and Monaghan. From Maryborough a line runs north to Tullamore and Clara, and south to Kilkenny. A long cross-country line runs from Ennis and Limerick to Tipperary, Clonmel, Waterford, and Wexford; and another from Tralee and Killarney to Mallow and Fermoy. The principal extensions in prospect are (1) from Enniskillen to Sligo; (2) to Mullingar, Athlone, and ultimately to Galway; (3) to Clones and Cavan. The noble Lord said there was a line already to Galway.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The telegraph office of this House was my authority.
LORD DENMAN: I dare say the telegraph office of this House is wrong. A number of minor extensions are also being considered. These extensions can only be carried out if sufficient local support and guarantees are obtained; and the Postmaster-General is corresponding on the subject with the local authorities and others interested.

BACK-TO-BACK HOUSES.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether Dr. Darra Mair was instructed to report on the sanitary conditions of back-to-back houses in Halifax in 1908; whether he carried out his inspection in May, 1908; and whether His Majesty's Government will lay his Report upon the Table of the House. I think your Lordships will appreciate why I ask this Question at this moment. The Housing and Town Planning Bill will shortly come before us with an Amendment inserted by your Lordships on the subject of back-to-back houses disagreed with by the other House. When that Bill was taken in Committee in your Lordships' House there

587
were no statistics available to show what was the sanitary condition of modern back-to-back houses; and Mr. Burns, when he moved the Second Reading in another place, gave no information whatever of an official character on that subject. He quoted from a book published in 1840 about back-to-back houses, from a leaflet issued by a society in London for the prevention of consumption, and from an undated Report. And when the Bill went back to the Commons be quoted some figures which were given by medical officers of health in Lancashire, I think notably with regard to Liverpool; but what he did not quote, and what has never been given to us, is the Report of Dr. Darra Mair, who was appointed to inquire specially into this matter. This gentleman was asked, as I am informed, to make his inspection in 1908, and he made it in May of that year; yet we have no information of what he said except from a report published in the Yorkshire Observer, according to which the Medical Officer of Health for Halifax stated that Dr. Darra Mair had selected certain back-to-back houses at Halifax as typical. He gave a table which showed that the death-rate for back-to-back houses was 13·3 and for through houses 15·6. From phthisis the death-rate for back-to-back houses was one, and for through houses 1·6. Therefore, the only official figures available are favourable to the back-to-back houses, which are being condemned by the Government. That being so, I ask His Majesty's Government to lay Dr. Darra Mair's Report on the Table. It might have been laid some time ago, but I can quite understand why it has been suppressed.
LORD ALLENDALE: In reply to the noble Lord, I can only say that Dr. Darra Mair was instructed by the Local Government Board to make the investigation in question, but it was part of a very wide investigation, in the course of which he visited a considerable number of towns besides Halifax. It is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that he began his investigations in 1908. The report is now in an advanced state of preparation, and when it is issued steps will be taken for presenting it to Parliament.
LORD WENLOCK: I should like to ask whether, as the whole question of back-to-back houses appears to be sub judice, the Local Government Board will go on with the provisions relating to it included in the Housing and Town Planning Bill.
LORD ALLENDALE: I understand that negotiations are going on in regard to the Bill, but to what extent that particular question is under consideration I cannot say. Perhaps it would be better if the noble Lord waited until the Bill is again before this House.

SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Report from the Committee of the reason to be offered to the Commons for disagreeing to one of their Amendments read, and agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments and the reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CAWDOR: Before the House adjourns, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make any statement with reference to the arrangement of business for next week?
LORD DENMAN: It is proposed, if that suits the convenience of the House, to adjourn till Tuesday next, except for Judicial business. For Tuesday the orders are the Naval Discipline Bill and a Question by Lord Ampthill. The Government do not propose to put down any other business of importance for that day. I am afraid that is all the information I am able to give the noble Earl.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.