Lords Sitting of 25 October 1909

COLINTON TRAMWAYS ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
Petition against of; of Wandsworth Borough Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to amend subsection (1) of Clause 4, which ran—
4.—(1) Regulations may be made by the Lord Lieutenant under subsection (8) of section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 for determining the priority in which advances, whether by means of money or of stock, or partly by means of money and partly by means of stock, may be sanctioned; and for allocating as between different classes of sales the total amounts from time to time available for advances; but such allocation shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, preserve the priority in which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission,
by omitting the words "but such allocation shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, preserve the priority in which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission," and inserting the words "Provided, however, that the priority of cases shall, as far as practicable, be regulated by the date at which the proceedings in each case were commenced in the Land Commission, the Land Judge's Court, and in the offices of the Congested Districts Board respectively, and in case of dispute as to such date it shall be referred to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final."
He desired to leave out the words in question because difficulties would obviously arise if they were left in, as they would only apply to one class of cases—namely, to the class of cases in which there had been a sale direct to the tenants by the landlord. He
316
was informed that though these words created a system which would be perfectly practicable in such cases, the words were not general enough, as they did not apply to all cases. They excluded cases such as those of sales direct to the Land Commission or cases in which the sale had been through the Court of the Land Judge. Therefore he asked their Lordships to omit the words, with the object of inserting the words as printed in his Amendment, which would ensure that, estates being the unit, cases should always date from the first step taken in connection with the sale—the first step, that was to say, in filing the cases before the proper authorities. There were various names for this first step. It was known, he believed, as an originating application in the case of a direct sale, as an originating request in the case of a sale direct to the Land Commission, and as a proposal to tenants before the Land Judge in other cases, and so on. The words "regulated by the date at which the proceedings in each case were commenced" would carry out what he thought was the intention of their Lordships in inserting this Amendment on Report.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 14, to leave out from the word 'advances' to the end of subsection (1), and to insert 'Provided, however, that the priority of cases shall, as far as practicable, be regulated by the date at which the proceedings in each case were commenced in the Land Commission, the Land Judge's Court, and in the offices of the Congested Districts Board respectively, and in case of dispute as to such date it shall be referred to the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision shall be final.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): So far as the omission of the words put in by the noble Viscount at a former stage and the substitution of others are concerned, we quite agree that the noble Earl's words are more appropriate from his point of view; but I should like to ask him whether he has satisfied himself that the line of proceeding which I think is generally agreed should be taken under our financial proposals is not gravely interfered with by this Amendment. The words which cause me to say this are "as far as practicable." The plan which we had in our minds for the allocation of the various cases under different heads is quite familiar to the noble Earl, and I am sure I need not repeat it, but I do not think that the words "so far as practicable" would

317
enable the Commissioners to make regulations which would enable cases to be determined not by their priority in the whole list of cases that had been lodged, but their priority in the particular class to which they belonged, and I am sure that noble Lords will see that if you interfere with that classification you destroy the basis on which the division into cash payments, payments in part cash and part stock, and all stock payments, is made.
For instance, in a case of this kind you have one vendor, A, who decides to take all cash; B decides to take half cash and half stock. The moment that they reach that decision those two cease to be in any competition because they belong to different classes, and once they have made that decision their relative priority ceases to be at all operative. The noble Earl will understand what I mean. If you maintain the priority between those two on the whole list of applications, you may keep B back, although the Estates Commissioners are quite ready to consider his case, because on the total list he is behind A, although he is on a par with A once you divide the list into different classes. To put the thing another way. Suppose that on the half stock and half cash list there is enough money to make the advance to B in his priority on that list, but there is not enough cash in the cash list to make an advance at the moment to A, who holds a position of priority on the purely cash list; it is not reasonable to ask B to wait until cash can be found to pay A off in cash. Once the different classes have been divided, you must cease to make them competitive with each other; otherwise your system of classification cannot possibly work. And for this reason. I may remind the House once more that the inducement to go either for half stock or whole stock is the fact that a man gets a priority in his class. If he is not going to get that, of course he may just as well wait and take cash altogether. Therefore, we think that the insertion of the words proposed positively endangers the plan of regulations which I have explained to the House, and I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said the words in the Amendment were "Provided, however, that the priority of cases shall, as far as practicable," etc. So far as he could see, the argument of the noble Earl in charge of
318
the Bill was that he did not think the Amendment practicable.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. It is because it is practicable to take them in their precise order without reference to their classification that I object to the words. It would end by destroying the classification altogether. You cannot say that it is not practicable to do it.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO thought the date at which the proceedings in each case were commenced should be taken into consideration when allocating these moneys. Notwithstanding what the noble Earl had said about A having cash and B taking half cash and half stock, they surely could not leave out of consideration the date at which those cases were begun. He quite followed what the noble Earl had said as to the difficulty of this matter, and that in dotting the i's and crossing the t's rather more latitude should be given to the Estates Commissioners. That he quite understood; but in their opinion the Estates Commissioners had enough latitude already. That was the reason why the Amendment was proposed, and he supported it. The noble Earl had referred to A as taking all cash, and said that if there was not enough cash to pay him, then B would come in and would get his half cash and half stock. He thought that was a reason why they should have the allocation more clearly stated in the Bill. After all, they did not look with very great favour upon stock, but they did look with a great deal of favour upon cash.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE quite recognised that the Government found this a difficult point and its solution by no means easy; but there was a further element which embarrassed the question—namely, that in addition to the matters stated by the noble Earl there was the element of the cash to be found for compulsory purchase. Did that displace any priorities that were on the sub-lists? There were rules at present in existence in reference to priority, and if the Government would print what were their present rules on the subject and take power to change and alter them, the House would know what was in the minds of the Government on the matter, and the Government would be left perfect freedom of action to change the rules whenever they thought it reasonable or right to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I gather that the noble Earl prefers the words now moved by Lord Donoughmore to the words which are at present in the Bill, without, of course, in any way committing himself to approval of the principle of the Amendment; but he suggests to the House that whichever form of words is adopted, the adoption of them may endanger the basis upon which these regulations will proceed. May I put it to the noble Earl that the worst thing that could happen under this Amendment of my noble friend would be that it would prove to some extent ineffectual for the purpose at which he desires to arrive. The noble Earl's point is this, and I think it is a perfectly good one, that as between these three classes into which the applicants will be grouped it is impossible to guarantee that there shall be priority depending upon the date of the original inception of the proceedings. The applicant may take a passage upon a fast train or a slow train, or a train that goes at a medium pace, and according as he takes a place in the one train or the other, his priority will be greater or less as compared with the priority of others. We all admit that anything like a rigid application of the doctrine of "first come first served" is impossible; but still my noble friend attaches importance to these words because they will be a general indication that so far as is practicable, because that is the reservation which he makes, this principle of priority should be observed. I therefore put it to the noble Earl that the worst thing that can be said about my noble friend's Amendment is that it may not produce such good results as he expects. On the other hand, I think we may say it will be entirely innocuous, and I cannot see why it should in any way embarrass those who will have to give effect to the regulations under this subsection.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This is the Bill, but the regulations are not in the Bill. What the noble Earl means is "so far as is practicable" within the regulations which may be made. But, if he does not say so, would not anybody whose order of priority was broken have a remedy against the Estates Commissioners, on the wording of this clause? He would say, "I know nothing about regulations. All I see is that the Act of Parliament provides that so far as is practicable I must be taken in my turn, and I am not taken in my turn. It was quite practicable to take me in my turn." If the regulations were in the Bill, the noble
320
Marquess's reasoning would, I think, be correct.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Would not the answer be that the text of the Bill laid it down that priority was to be observed as far as practicable, and that that, therefore, completely covered the authorities who framed the regulations and who found that the "first come first served" principle could not be adopted?
THE EARL OF CREWE: It may be so, but I confess I am afraid of the phrase.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE asked whether it would meet the noble Earl's point if he inserted the words "in the making of such regulations." The proviso would then read—"Provided, however, that in the making of such regulations the priority of cases shall as far as practicable," etc.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): If you say that, the regulations themselves would be governed by the direction that there is to be a priority according to time, and you would destroy the three classes. But the point might be met by the proviso commencing, "Provided, however, that subject to such regulations relating to the priority of different classes the priority of cases, shall, as far as practicable, be regulated," etc.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he would gladly accept the noble and learned Lord's suggestion. He would also insert before the word "practicable" the word "reasonably."
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE, in moving his second Amendment to Clause 4, said their Lordships would remember that on Report the noble Earl in charge of the Bill moved an Amendment stating that the regulations were to be laid before Parliament. He desired to go a step further and to provide that those regulations should lie on the Table of this and the other House of Parliament for a certain time, and that their Lordships should have the usual power of moving an Address against anything which was objected to. He did not think it would be necessary to explain the procedure. It was well known to their Lordships.

321
A similar procedure was already provided for by the Government in another part of the Bill. The Government had themselves taken practically the same words from the Act of 1881 which he in his Amendment took from that Act, only they applied the procedure to a different class of cases. The last two lines of his Amendment, "This section shall apply only to cases arising under Sections 1 to 7 inclusive of the Act of 1903," were, perhaps, a little difficult to understand. The object of that subsection was to make it quite clear that certain classes of cases should be excluded which obviously ought to be excluded. There were, as a matter of fact, five such classes. This Amendment was merely an extension of a system of procedure which had been adopted by the Government in another part of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 19, after the word 'made,' to insert the words' if Parliament be then sitting, and if Parliament be not then sitting, within three Weeks after the beginning of the then next Session of Parliament; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent one hundred days on which the said House shall have sat, praying that any such regulation may he annulled. His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the regulation so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the same.
Provided that where any regulation or any part thereof is so annulled, the Lord Lieutenant may, under said subsection (8) of section twenty-three of the Act of 1903, make another regulation in place of the regulation or part so annulled, subject nevertheless to be laid before Parliament, and to be annulled by His Majesty in Council in manner above-mentioned, and so on as often as the case requires.
(3) This section shall apply only to cases arising under sections one to seven inclusive of the Act of 1903.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think I before stated that we do not think this Amendment a desirable one, and for this reason. It may fairly be argued that regulations of this kind should be subject to Parliamentary criticism, but we do not think that they are suitable for direct Parliamentary amendment. The noble Earl will recognise that if you give a power of repealing anything to Parliament, you in the last resort give a power of amendment, because it means by an exhaustive process that the Irish Government of the day may go on proposing regulation after regulation, and one House of Parliament—your Lordships' House for
322
instance—decides to consider each as it conies, with the ultimate intention and possibly the ultimate result of getting the regulations framed in the way that you yourselves decide. We do not think that these extremely technical points are in reality suitable to Parliamentary amendment, however properly in a conceivable case, if anything which was considered unfair was supposed to be done, they might be subject to Parliamentary criticism. I am aware that the noble Earl sets great store by this Amendment, and I certainly should not propose to divide the House against it. As regards his proposed subsection (3), why, for instance, should compulsory sales under this Act be excluded from consideration in these regulations, and they certainly would be? Neither do I see myself why sales of individual holdings should be excluded, as they would be. They are sold through the Estates Commissioners in various cases. It only shows how difficult it is to get these priorities and all these things into an Act of Parliament.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN could not help thinking that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had exaggerated the part which Parliament was likely to take in consequence of an Order of this kind. If their Lordships would look at the cases in which this power had been given they would find that it had only been exercised in very extreme cases, and he did not think the noble Earl could produce an instance in which either House of Parliament, because it wished that some particular regulation should be made, had gone on negativing regulation after regulation after it had been laid on the Table. It seemed to him that this objection really existed more in the noble Earl's mind than in any practice that had hitherto taken place. It seemed to him that what had just been done rather strengthened the case for the application of this particular form in this particular instance, because the Amendment which had just been accepted provided that subject to the regulations which might be made the priority of cases should be regulated by the date at which the proceedings in each case were commenced. That, of course, placed the whole power in the regulations, and therefore made it more desirable that Parliament should possess the power of at all events inspecting and observing what had been done, while retaining the power to interfere in an extreme case if it should be found that the regulations were not such as in the opinion of Parliament was

323
just. Of course, it was not desirable that a procedure of this kind should be applied in every case. When regulations were trivial and small, they were not such as to require the attention of Parliament, so far at least as the power of rejection was concerned, and it might be quite sufficient that they should lie on the Table as was now proposed in the Bill; but these regulations being, as they were, very important and likely to produce important results, it was surely right that Parliament should retain power of watching over what was done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF KENMARE THE EARL OF KENMARE moved to add to Clause 5 the following new subsection—
(5) Any vendor may agree to advances being made in bills or bonds issued under this section as in the case of stock under section three on conditions prescribed by the Treasury.
The object of his Amendment was to enable vendors who so willed it to accept payment from the Treasury in short notes. Under the law as it stood, even if the Treasury were willing to give these notes to vendors, the tenants for life would not be legally entitled to accept them. It would be of enormous advantage to landlords in a great many cases if they could receive these short notes bearing interest at two and three-quarters per cent. It would be voluntary on the part of the Treasury to give the notes. The Amendment was merely to make the process legal.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 2, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection—
'(5) Any vendor may agree to advances being made in bills or bonds issued under this section as in the case of stock under section three on conditions prescribed by the Treasury.'"—(The Earl of Kenmare.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl has brought forward his Amendment in a somewhat different form from what he did in the Committee stage. Then he made it compulsory, at the request of the vendor, for the Treasury to issue these bills or bonds. I think the noble Earl has not quite understood why this provision was put into the Bill. It was not done in any way as an alternative method for paying vendors. It was simply done to enable the Treasury to raise money in this way for payments in cash instead of issuing stock for the purpose
324
if the state of the market rendered it undesirable at the time. It is simply part of the arrangement for paying vendors in cash and, therefore, so far as the noble Earl's point is concerned, the vendor would gain nothing, because as soon as the transaction is actually concluded he gets his cash, and he cannot get anything, either bonds or bills or anything else, until the transaction is concluded. One reason which would make it undesirable from the Treasury point of view to issue these bills or bonds to the Land Commission is that their price, as the noble Earl very well knows, varies markedly and rapidly, and the probable duration of the bills thus issued would, as I understand, be not more than a year, although power is taken to issue bills or bonds for a longer term. I am therefore given to understand that the Treasury would not agree to the noble Earl's Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said it was difficult to follow the noble Earl's view. It seemed to him that the matter was hardly understood. If the duration of the bond came into the matter at all it came into it in the question of whether or not the Treasury should issue the bonds, but apparently the Treasury thought it desirable or His Majesty's Government would not have introduced the power into the Bill. If the power was once introduced into the Bill, he failed to see why the Government should not take full advantage of the obvious pecuniary benefit they would get from the issue of the bonds. If they issued these bonds, it would be because they got a higher price in the market for them than for stock. Take the present position. The two and three-quarters per cent. Irish Land Stock stood at eighty-five; the two and three-quarters per cent. Government obligations on these short bonds stood at ninety-eight or ninety-nine. The Government might think it undesirable to issue such bonds at all, but if they did think it desirable, they certainly would not desire to put a larger amount on the market than they could help, and every bond which was accepted by the vendors relieved the market to a certain extent. All that his noble friend asked was this. The Government intended to issue stock instead of cash in a certain number of cases, but the Government proposed to deprive themselves of the power of issuing a bond which would be more acceptable to vendors than stock, and at the same time would least depreciate

325
their own security. Seeing that the whole matter was permissive and that the Government would not issue bonds unless they found that it was thoroughly safe, he thought it was most unwise to debar themselves from the advantage of being able to issue them to Irish landlords in place of issuing cash. He hoped the noble Earl would reconsider his objection to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 5. This was the point which the noble Earl was good enough to say he would reconsider if the Amendment were placed in as a permissive Amendment. The object of the new clause was to enable the authorities to accept payment in stock where they were willing to do so; and having in view the fact that a large number of transactions between landlords and the Government had to be made at present in cash although the landlord might be forced to accept stock, it certainly would seem desirable, in respect of the obligations which he had to the Government, that he should be in the position, if the Government accepted it, to tender stock in place of cash.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 5, to insert the following new clause—
'4. Where a vendor, under future purchase agreements receives payment in stock instead of in cash, all charges, duties, incumbrances, and redemption prices of quit-rents, tithe rent-charge, or other superior interests payable out of the purchase-money to the Crown, the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works or any Public Department, may be received and paid in stock upon the like terms as payment in stock was received by the vendor, and it shall be lawful for the Land Judge, and the Judges of the Chancery Division, and for any trustees, in respect of any sums payable out of the purchase-money into Court or to such trustees, to accept payment in stock on the like terms as payment was received by the vendor.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have been in communication with the Treasury on this point. The point, I take it, of the noble Viscount is this, that it may at some time be so undesirable from the view of the Exchequer to flood the market with stock which has to be turned into cash for the purpose of paying off a charge, that the Treasury would actually prefer that the Crown should be paid off in stock rather than in cash. I am given to understand
326
that the amounts which at any one time could be put on the market for this purpose are not such as to run the risk of disturbing the market in the manner which the noble Viscount appears to fear. The noble Viscount has on this occasion not laid any stress on the words "for any trustees," which are of a rather wide nature. He proposes that it shall be lawful for the Land Judge and the Judges of the Chancery Division and for any trustees in respect of any sums payable out of the purchase money into Court or to such trustees, to accept payment in stock on the like terms as payment was received by the vendor. That is giving to trustees a power to accept a security of less value than cash, and it certainly does seem to me to be a remarkable provision to place in an Act of Parliament. Therefore so far as the mere question of payments to the Crown is concerned, we do not think that the power is worth having, and so far as the question of payment to trustees is concerned we object to it as being altogether removed from precedent in any Act of Parliament which we can remember.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said this had been argued several times on his initiative and on that of other members of their Lordships' House; but he could assure the noble Earl that it was a far larger question than the Treasury seemed to think. They might not have many cases in view at the moment under which they expected that there would have to be sales for redemption but these superior interests were found in connection with the Irish land system in an infinitely greater degree than noble Lords living in England, Scotland, and Wales would be accustomed to. He had made careful inquiries into the matter and had come to the conclusion that superior interests amounting to as much as twenty-five per cent. of the gross rents represented merely an average state of affairs in connection with an Irish estate and an estate on which there were no mortgages whatever. He would have thought, therefore, that it was most desirable that some such enabling power as was given in this Amendment should be inserted in the Bill, and he confessed it was with very considerable regret that he heard the decision of the Government that they were going to force this stock on the market, because he thought it would do them indirectly a great deal more harm than this concession if accepted.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said quit rents was a very old charge and were redeemed at the enormous price of twenty-five years purchase. Tithe rents were redeemed at twenty-two and a-half years purchase. If they had to pay cash and take stock and to sell stock to pay these charges, it really was not quite fair. He hoped the noble Earl would see his way to accept the Amendment, even if all words were deleted after the word "vendor." That would do away with the difficulty which the noble Earl had raised with regard to trustees.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DUNBOYNEsaid the words which he proposed to omit from the beginning of subsection (2) of Clause 12 were superfluous, and, being superfluous, were apt to be mischievous. For instance, a voluntary agreement entered into with the Congested Districts Board would not be made "at the request of the Land Commission," and as such would not come under the provisions of the clause at all. He did not think that was intended, and he therefore moved that the words be omitted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 16, to leave out the words 'at the request of the Land Commission.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: As the clause stands, the kind of case which is intended to be met is as follows. The landlord has agreed with his tenants to sell on certain terms. Then the Land Commission inspect the estate, and, owing to its particular circumstances, find that it would be one which they consider would be suitable to be sold to them or to the Congested Districts Board, with a view, say, of distributing untenanted land, and the improvement of holdings, and so on. Then they inform the vendor of this and ask him to sell to them instead of selling direct to the tenants. Then the vendor, hearing this, makes a new arrangement with the Estates Commissioners. It would be very hard upon everybody concerned if that new arrangement had to be carried out on terms less advantageous than the old agreement. Therefore, this clause says that when, at the request of the Land Commission, this change is made and the sale to the Commissioners is instituted, the terms shall be the old terms. Why should a vendor who has entered into an agreement
328
with his tenants be allowed to change his mind and sell to the Land Commission, not at their request, simply because it may suit him better to do so? It seems to me that the fact that the Land Commission have asked for the land is a justification for breaking the original agreement: but if they have not done so, I confess it seems to me hard that the agreement should be in any way broken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD called attention to the existence in the clause of the words "or the Congested Districts Board," which appeared to him to be out of place in the Bill as it now stood. The clause ran "Where a vendor, at the request of the Land Commission, enters into an agreement with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board," etc. The vendor would no longer, under the Bill as it now stood, enter into an agreement with the Congested Districts Board. It seemed to him, therefore, that the words "or the Congested Districts Board" and also the words "or board" later on were out of place.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that if the noble Lord would read on he would find in the subsection the words "on or before the 24th day of November, 1908." They would, therefore, be past transactions.
THE EARL OF KENMARE THE EARL OF KENMARE moved to amend paragraph (a) of Clause 13—
(a) The expression "pending purchase agreements "means agreements lodged with the Land Commission on or before the fifteenth day of September nineteen hundred and nine, or entered into on or before that date by or with the Land Commission or the Land Judge or the Congested Districts Board,
by omitting the words "lodged with the Land Commission" and inserting the words "entered into." If the clause was passed in its present form a state of confusion would arise in the case of agreements signed by vendor and purchaser, which, although they formed valid contracts between the parties, could not for some good reason be lodged in the Estates Commissioners' Office. There were cases of deaths, of boundary difficulties, title, etc., which had sometimes prevented this taking place, and there was hardly an estate where there were not such cases. If the words "entered into" were used instead of "lodged with the

329
Land Commission," the difficulty would be got over and these contracts would not be broken. Those were the words used in the Act of 1903 and in the section dealing with the bonus and in this Bill in the case of sales to the Land Commission. Why, therefore, make an exception in the case of voluntary sales between landlord and tenant?
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 37, to leave out 'lodged with Land Commission,' and to insert 'entered into.'"—(The Earl of Kenmare.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON reminded the noble Earl the Leader of the House that he had been good enough to promise on Report that he would at this stage tell the House what was the position of tenants who had recently entered into these agreements.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry again to have to say that I cannot agree to the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite, because, as the noble Earl, I think, will see, the financial operations of the Bill depend in a marked degree upon the distinctions which it has been felt necessary to draw between pending agreements and future agreements. As the clause stands, pending agreements means agreements lodged with the Land Commission on or before the 15th day of September of this year, and the words apply to agreements for direct sales entered into between landlord and tenant. The only definitely ascertainable date, as it seems to me, that you can find is the date of lodgment. How is it possible to ascertain at what date in many cases the agreements have been really entered into? Of course it would be most material to everybody to prove, if they could, that the agreement had been entered into before September 15, and it would be very hard to say what degree of informal communication might not be regarded, if those words were inserted, as an entering into of the agreement.
The noble Viscount on the Front Bench opposite asked me on the last stage of the Bill what was the legal position of tenants who at this moment and before the passing of the Bill proposed to come in. What, he asked, was the position of those who came in before the passing of the Act. The words must be carefully read. The phrase is "lodged with the Land Commission on or
330
before the 15th day of September." The noble Viscount then said that—
"a tenant who chose to come in before this Art was passed would be debarred in future from coming in at three and a-quarter per cent. He was entitled to come in at three and a-quarter per cent. now, and therefore the date which had been put in, 15th September, was practically ultra vires."
The noble Viscount could not have meant ultra vires in the strict sense, because nothing is ultra vires, in an Act of Parliament; but what the noble Viscount did mean was that it put a retrospective disability on the tenant which he did not conceive to be a fair thing to do. That, I take it, is what the noble Viscount really meant, and it certainly is the case that the 15th of September and the lodging of the agreement must be taken as the two determining factors in the case of the tenant just as in the case of the landlord—that is to say, that unless the agreement has been lodged before September 13, the tenant will come in on the worse terms. The noble Viscount, I am afraid, must take it from me that that is so. I fear we cannot, for the reasons I have stated, accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW THE EARL OF WICKLOW moved to amend paragraph (d) of Clause 16—
(d) Any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission after adequate provision has been made to satisfy the requirements of the persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this subsection an advance ought to be made: Provided that no advance shall be made to the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding of an annual rateable value of more than thirty pounds, nor shall any advance be made to more than one son of the same tenant,
by adding at the end the words "nor to any son of a tenant if he is such tenant's only son." The object of this Amendment was, be explained, to correct an oversight in the drafting of the clause. It might seem desirable to provide a holding for one of a large family of sons, but it seemed to him that in the case of an only son this could not be considered desirable. The only son would eventually succeed to the holding in the occupation of his father, and if this clause became law and under it he received a new holding during his father's lifetime, on his father's death he would find himself the proud possessor of two holdings. That, he submitted was contrary to the principle of the Bill, and the words he proposed to

331
insert would have the effect of excluding the only son from the operation of the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 7, after 'tenant,' to insert 'nor to any son of a tenant if he is such tenant's only Son.'"—(The Earl of Wicklow.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: This makes another small limitation, but not a very material one. I have already stated that in our opinion the restriction in any case must work unfairly, and I have nothing to add on the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BARRYMORE LORD BARRYMORE, in moving the insertion in Clause 31 of a new subsection to provide that the provisions of Section 67, subsection (3), of the Act of 1903, should not apply to any land or holding subject to a purchase annuity unless the Land Commission deemed it expedient, said he hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would take the same view of his Amendment as he had done of the last, as it was a very simple and harmless one. It was rather technical, however, and in form somewhat objectionable, because it was legislation by reference. Its whole object was to leave it in the discretion of the Land Commission whether they would or would not enforce the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 67 of the Act of 1903, the terms of which were mandatory. He was told that the mandatory character of the subsection had worked unreasonably in many cases. Under Section 30 of the Act of 1881 a tenant purchaser could not subdivide his holding without the consent of the Land Commission, who only gave their consent when they were satisfied that they ought to do so. When they did consent to subdivision, by the Act of 1896 they apportioned the annuity on the divided portions of the holding, and if the interest in one of those portions should be purchased by another tenant purchaser, his holding and his annuity must be consolidated into one with the portion he had purchased or which had been conveyed to him with the annuity attached thereto. In practice that was sometimes neither convenient nor reasonable; for instance, a portion might have been bought up by the tenant purchaser with the intention of transferring it later on to one of his sons as a provision for him. On the whole, it would be convenient that the apportionment under the provisions of Section 67, subsection (3), of the Act of
332
1903 should be in the discretion of the Land Commission, instead of being as at present obligatory. Their Lordships would see that the proposed new subsection gave elasticity; it placed power in the hands of the Land Commission and would enable them to deal justly and equitably with such cases as came before them.
Amendment moved—
"In page 17, line 3, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection—
'(5) The provisions of section sixty-seven, subsection (3) of the Act of 1903, shall not apply to any land or holding subject to a purchase annuity unless the Land Commission deem it expedient, having regard to the situation, size, and character of such land or holding, to apply the provisions of the said subsection thereto.'"—(Lord Barrymore.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord asked if I could give as favourable a reception to this Amendment as I did to the last. I can give a much more favourable reception to it, because I did not think that the last really was a good Amendment, whereas I think this is quite clearly a good one. It must be somewhat absurd that two parcels of land possibly situated in different counties should necessarily be regarded as one holding. But I might point out to the noble Lord that this would look better as a new clause. It has no very distinct bearing upon Clause 31, and I should suggest, therefore, that the Amendment should read after Clause 31 as a new clause, if the noble Lord will agree to that.
LORD BARRYMORE LORD BARRYMORE said that he would have much pleasure in moving it as the noble Earl suggested.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 38 to insert the following new clause—
'39.—(1) Where any land sold under the Land Purchase Acts is subject to any rent reserved under a lease, and no payment on foot of such rent has been made for a period of forty years prior to such sale, such rent shall, for the purposes of such sale and the distribution of the purchase money, be deemed to have been released.
(2) Where portions of any such rent have become vested in different owners, this section shall apply to any portion of such rent as if it was a separate rent.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I can accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved a new clause after Clause 40 for the purpose of adding to the Congested Districts Board a paid member, nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, who should control and conduct the Board's establishments and administration, subject to the orders of the Board; of appointing an Estates Commissioner, taken in rotation, as an ex officio member of the Board on a vacancy occurring among the appointed members, who were to be reduced to seven; and of limiting the term of office of appointed members other than the paid member to four years, with eligibility for reappointment.
He asked their Lordships' pardon for bringing the matter again under the notice of the House, but he was deeply impressed with the importance of having a paid member on the Congested Districts Board. It was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Dudley Commission that paid members, two or three, at all events two, were absolutely essential if the work of the Congested Districts Board was to be properly conducted. He had been a member and vice-chairman of the Congested Districts Board for nearly six years, and almost every day a large quantity of work, which could not be held over from one sitting of the Board to the other, was brought before him, and he had to pass orders on it, and trust to getting the sanction of the Board at a subsequent meeting. It was absolutely essential if the work was to be properly done that there should be a paid member. The establishments were large and the work considerable, and unless there was an authoritative head of the office matters would fall into arrear. That was his reason for proposing the first paragraph of his Amendment.
The Congested Districts Board at present consisted of eleven members, and he proposed that it should consist of twelve, in order to give the Lord Lieutenant the opportunity of appointing if necessary from outside the most competent person he could find. He was willing, if their Lordships so desired, to restrict the first clause by omitting the words "From and after the appointed day the Congested Districts Board shall consist of twelve members of whom," and so restrict the Board to the eleven members of which it consisted at present; but he thought it would be better if an opportunity were given to the Lord Lieutenant not necessarily to take his man from the existing Board. If their Lordships
334
desired to restrict the number of members to eleven, he was willing to cut out those words, and he thought that among the members of the Board the Lord Lieutenant would find an extremely competent person for the work.
The next portion of his Amendment was to introduce on the Board on the next vacancy a member of the Estates Commissioners. Formerly a member of the Estates Commissioners was on the Board and his presence was useful; but now that the Estates Commissioners would have to do all the purchasing work for the Board, it was very desirable that they should be acquainted with what passed at the Board, and generally be informed as to the motives and intentions of the Board. The object of the last paragraph of his Amendment was to effect an extension of the existing rule as to the length of tenure of office. Some of the Board held their office for life and some for four years, and he thought in the advantage of the public service that there should be a limitation of the period for which a member of the Board holds office. He would make him eligible for re-appointment, but he thought four years a sufficient time for any member of the Board continuing to occupy his seat. He would prefer that his Amendment should be accepted in its present form changing the word "shall" in the second paragraph into "may" if necessary; and if their Lordships should wish to change the membership to eleven, he was also quite willing, as he had said, to modify his Amendment in that respect in accordance with their wishes.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 40, to insert the following new clause—
'41. From and after the appointed day the Congested Districts Board shall consist of twelve members of whom an appointed member, to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, shall be paid by the Board out of the funds at their disposal, such annual salary as the Lord Lieutenant may fix. Such paid member shall hold his office at pleasure and shall control and conduct the Boards establishments and administration, subject in all respects to the orders of the Board.
When a vacancy shall occur among the appointed members of the Board, the number of appointed members shall be reduced to seven, and an Estates Commissioner to be taken in rotation by rule to be made under section forty-two of this Act, shall be appointed as an ex officio member of the Board.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE thought it would have been convenient if the noble Lord

335
had stated to their Lordships the present position, and exactly what he regarded as the future position. The noble Lord was so full of the subject that he assumed every one else was seized of an equal amount of knowledge, which was an entire mistake. It would be convenient to their Lordships if the noble Lord would state exactly the present condition as to numbers, the difference between appointed members and ex officio members, and exactly how the change would work out if the Amendment was adopted. He was afraid that very few in their Lordships' House could claim anything like the same amount of knowledge on the subject as the noble Lord possessed.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD pointed out that on one of the occasions on which he had had the honour of addressing their Lordships' House he did explain what the position was. It was that the Congested Districts Board at present consisted of three ex officio members—the Chief Secretary, the Under-Secretary, and the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. It also consisted of eight nominated members, forming a total of eleven. His proposal was that a twelfth should be appointed, and that the Lord Lieutenant should have the option of choosing any member of the Board to appoint to the paid post.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked whether that meant any member of the existing Board.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the paid member might either be appointed from outside or from the existing members, not being an ex officio member. He had put the number at twelve in order to give the Lord Lieutenant a wider field of selection for an appointment to a post which would be one of extreme importance. If he was limited to the existing appointed members of the Board, the election must necessarily fall on one gentleman, who would do doubt be an efficient member of the Board. When in another place the Chief Secretary stated his intention of appointing two paid members to the Board he mentioned the name of Mr. Micks and Mr. Doran. Mr. Micks happened to be a member of the Board at present, and consequently, if the Lord Lieutenant had to choose from the existing members of the Board, he naturally would
336
choose Mr. Micks. They could not get a better man; nor could they get a man more fitted for the post than Mr. Doran. If they kept the number at eleven, the choice must necessarily fall on Mr. Micks, whereas if they raised the number to twelve, the Lord Lieutenant would have a choice between the two. Those were his reasons for proposing the increase of the number to twelve.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There is a change of tenure in the case of the paid member.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that was so; he had provided for the paid member holding his office at pleasure. Under the Government Bill he could not be removed without the consent of both Houses of Parliament. The high officers of the Civil Service in Ireland held their office at pleasure, and as this appointment was not of a higher status he was not disposed to give to the gentleman who might be appointed a higher tenure of office than was enjoyed by the heads of those great Departments.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said he did not quite know what to say with regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, in respect to the composition of the Board. He agreed that it was really necessary that they should have a paid member of the Board, but whether it was necessary to increase the number of members to twelve in order to have a paid member was a matter upon which he did not know how to advise their Lordships. It seemed to him that they might find a paid member out of the eleven existing members of the Board. But what really puzzled him more than anything else was the latter part of the Amendment. Did the noble Lord mean to say that the moment there was a vacancy upon the Board, the number of appointed members should be at once ipso facto reduced to seven? How did he propose to effect that reduction? He thought the Amendment was not very acceptable as it stood.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that when the first appointed member of the Board retired at the end of the four years service for which an appointed member served, he not being a life member, there would be one vacancy. He proposed

337
that that one vacancy should be filled up by the appointment of an Estates Commissioner, and then the constitution of the Board would be four ex officio members, seven appointed members, and one paid member, twelve in all. His object in framing the Amendment in the way he had done was to avoid increasing the total number of the Board beyond twelve, and at the same time to obtain the advantage of the services of an Estates Commissioner. But, as he had already said, their Lordships could do what he wanted done by keeping the number at eleven and appointing one of the existing members as a paid member.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I remind your Lordships that we are now on the Third Reading?
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said he would like to draw their Lordships' attention to the fact that Clause 39, at the beginning of Part III, provided that, "From and after the appointed day the Congested Districts Board for Ireland shall be a body corporate bearing the name of the 'Congested Districts Board for Ireland,' with a capacity to acquire and hold land and to sue and be sued by its corporate name." That was what was in the Bill after it had gone through its various stages, and now, at the eleventh hour, Lord MacDonnell came forward and created a new Congested Districts Board altogether. In the first place the number of members on the Board at present was eleven and the noble Lord wanted to make it into twelve, and among those twelve members he desired to appoint a gentleman at a very large salary. Their Lordships had heard of that before, and he did not know which gentleman the noble Lord favoured, whether Mr. Micks or Mr. Doran. That was not a matter to be discussed there; but; at the end of his Amendment the noble Lord made the extraordinary suggestion that one of the Estates Commissioners should become a member of the Congested Districts Board. He did not think that the Estates Commissioners had any wish to add to their already numerous duties in the way suggested, and he could not imagine anything more unlikely to further the efficiency of the Congested Districts Board than having one of the Estates Commissioners upon it. They had gone into the question of the Congested Districts Hoard in the various discussions of the Bill most fully, and now their Lordships were asked to construct
338
quite a new Congested Districts Board with a paid member and an Estates Commissioner, if they pleased, added on. He could well have understood the noble Lord bringing forward such a scheme in Committee, but their Lordships were on the Third Reading, and they were asked to recast the whole of this part of the Bill, because, forsooth, an Estates Commissioner was to be put on the Congested Districts Board and a gentleman in Ireland was to receive a very large salary. That was really what it amounted to, and he hoped their Lordships would not accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think, in spite of the rather trenchant criticism of the noble Earl who has just sat down, that nobody will be disposed to quarrel with my noble friend behind me for having brought this subject up again, because it is one of the very first importance in relation to the structure of the Bill. I have very little to say on the Amendment of the noble Lord. The House knows that the Dudley Commission suggested that three paid members should be placed on the Board. In our Bill we proposed that there should be two paid members, and we adhere to the belief that the work will not be properly done unless two paid members are appointed. It is, of course, difficult to argue the matter at this stage, because the general character and functions of the Board have been so altered from what they were in the Bill as we first introduced it that it becomes difficult to say how the Amendment would apply to the Board as it stands. It must be remembered that the functions of the Board have been greatly reduced, and as your Lordships have made it an infinitely less important body than it was a week or two ago, how far my noble friend's Amendment is applicable to the changed state of things and to those truncated powers may be a matter for further argument. We have desired to see the Board more powerful, with a wider scope, and with two paid members, but even as it stands, I should myself be disposed to think that my noble friend's Amendment represents an improvement on the existing state of things.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When this subject was before us in Committee I think the general feeding was that we were very loath to consent to the abolition of the Congested Districts Board, a body which has earned for itself a great deal

339
of respect and a great deal of gratitude in many parts of Ireland. For the same reason we disliked the idea of replacing it by some new body which would be really wholly dissimilar from the Congested Districts Board as we have been accustomed to know it. Therefore the general feeling was in favour of leaving the Congested Districts Board, so far as its constitution is concerned, very much alone. The noble Lord on the Back Benches has made a proposal which if it had come before the House at an earlier stage I should certainly have thought was well worth being examined in detail. I say in detail because it is a composite proposal; it contains several distinct propositions, some of which might be easily accepted without the others being accepted.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Might I interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment? The fact that my noble friend did not bring this matter forward before may be accounted for, I think, in the following way. On the Report stage, there was an Amendment down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Leitrim, somewhat to the same effect so far as regards a paid member. That Amendment was not moved; my noble friend may have been under the impression that a discussion would arise upon it, and therefore he did not put down an Amendment himself.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble Lord on the Back Bench is not fully entitled to bring the matter forward at this stage. His Amendment, as I was saying, is one which embodies several distinct propositions. He desires that there should be a paid member added to the Congested Districts Board. I am bound to say that personally I see no objection whatever to that proposal. The noble Earl is quite correct in saying that during the Report stage an Amendment to this effect stood in the name of my noble friend Lord Leitrim, and that it was not moved. The second proposal of the noble Lord is that one of the Estates Commissioners should sit upon the Board. That, I confess, seems to me to be a much more doubtful proposal. I have no doubt that the object of it is to bring the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners into closer touch. Considering the relations in which these two bodies are to be placed under the Bill as it now stands, that is no doubt a very desirable thing; but I am not convinced that in order that the two bodies may be in
340
close touch it is necessary that one Estates Commissioner should have a seat upon the Congested Districts Board. Then the noble Lord on the Back Bench asks us to make a very important change in the constitution of the Board. There are at present, as I understand it, three ex officio members and eight nominated members. The noble Lord wishes that there should in future be four ex officio members, seven nominated members and one paid member. I do not myself attach very great importance to the mere alteration of the number from eleven to twelve. But the question of the tenure of the members of the Board is certainly a serious one. The noble Lord did not, in his very instructive statement, make quite clear to the House what the tenure of the appointed members of the present Congested Districts Board is. I understand that some of them are appointed for life and some for four years. The noble Lord desires that all the appointed members should hold on a four years tenure. That, again, seems to me to be a not unreasonable idea. But all these things were a little difficult to gather from the wording of the Amendment, probably for the reason that my noble friend Lord Ashbourne suggested, that we are not all of us quite so familiar with these questions as the noble Lord. Therefore my feeling with regard to this Amendment is that there are some features in it which commend themselves very much to my judgment, but, on the other hand, I am bound to say that there would, in my opinion, be very great difficulty in introducing upon the Third Reading of the Bill so complete a change as that which has been suggested by the noble Lord. Therefore, not without considerable regret, I am afraid I must tell him that I can scarcely advise him to press the Amendment upon the House. If the suggestion for the appointment of the paid member had been before us at an earlier stage, and if the change in the tenure of the appointed members had been before us also, I should certainly have been inclined to support both of those proposals.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Clause 42:
42. As from the appointed day an annual sum of one hundred and sixty-three thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, as follows:—
Out of that sum an annual sum of nineteen thousand pounds shall be paid to the Department for the purpose of the exercise of the powers and

341
the performance of the duties transferred to the Department under this Act, and the residue shall be paid to the Congested Districts Board:
Provided that at any time after the expiration of live years from the appointed day the Lord Lieutenant may, on the application of the Department or the Board, from time to time direct that the amount payable to the Department for the purpose aforesaid shall be increased or reduced, and the increased or reduced amount shall as from the date fixed by the Lord Lieutenant be the amount payable to the Department under this section.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said, in reference to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Clonbrock to leave out £19,000 and to insert £39,000, that the noble Lord was unfortunately ill and not able to move the Amendment personally. He therefore proposed to move it on behalf of the noble Lord; but as it was a question of the allocation of funds and there might be a question of privilege involved, he would not move it, especially at that stage, if the noble Earl did not feel inclined to accept it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: When a similar Amendment was moved on a previous occasion by my noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Monteagle, or was proposed to be moved by him, I stated that it was unusual for your Lordships' House to dispose directly of funds in this way. Having said that, I think I must leave it to the House to take whatever course your Lordships desire to take.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said that Lord MacDonnell had made a very strong statement in his Minute of Dissent in the Dudley Commission with regard to the allocation of these funds. But he did not wish to move the Amendment, because he felt that the question of the allocation of funds was a matter which it was outside the province of their Lordships' House to deal with.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 46 agreed to.
On Clause 48:
48.—(1) The Board may sell any parcels of any land purchased by them before the passing of this Act or purchased on their requisition under this Act to any tenants or proprietors of holdings in a congested districts county.
(2) If any parcels of such land are not required for, or having regard to the circumstances of the estate, land, or district cannot advantageously he sold to, such tenants or proprietors, the Board may, subject to the provisions as to the making of advances under the Land. Purchase Acts contained
342
in section fifteen of this Act, sell those parcels to whomsoever they think fit having regard to the welfare of the locality.
(3)Where the Congested Districts Board sell any parcel of land to the son of any tenant or proprietor under this section, they shall insert in their annual report to the Lord Lieutenant full particulars of the sale and the circumstances in which the same was made.
(4)The provisions of this Act with respect to the application of the Land Purchase Acts to parcels of land shall apply in the case of the sale of any parcel of land under this section.
(5)Section seventy-five of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to delete from subsection (2) the words "subject to the provisions as to the making of advances under the Land Purchase Acts contained in Section 15 of this Act sell," and to add at the end of subsection (4) the words in his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 24, line 22, to leave out from the word 'may' to the word 'sell' in line 24; and in line 34, after 'section' to insert 'subject, however, to restrictions as to the persons to whom the order in, and the conditions and circumstances upon or under which, advances may be made for the purchase of parcels of land under the Land Purchase Acts similar to those contained in section sixteen of this Act, so far as the same may be applicable.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 50:
50. Where the Congested Districts Board are of opinion that it is desirable to acquire land for the purpose of relieving congestion in any portion of a congested districts county, by adding to the holding of any proprietor or tenant of a holding therein of a rateable value of less than ten pounds, such parcel or parcels of lauds as will, when added to such holding, raise the rateable value thereof, so far as the same can at the time of such addition be reasonably estimated, to the sum of ten pounds, or by providing a holding for a person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion, they may, with the consent of the owner, proceed to inspect such land as may seem suitable for their purposes, and ascertain the amount which the owner thereof may demand for the sale to them of such land, and if the owner shall refuse such consent to inspection, or to state the price which he would accept for said land, such refusal shall be held to be sufficient grounds for the Congested Districts Board proceeding as hereinafter provided. If they are satisfied that land sufficient and suitable for that purpose cannot be acquired on their behalf by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price, they may submit to the Land Commission a scheme setting forth the land which they propose should be so acquired for the purposes aforesaid on their behalf, the extent, nature, boundaries, and condition thereof, and the names of the person or persons by whom the same owned, occupied, or used and enjoyed, the mode in which

343
it is used, worked, or cultivated, together with such further and other particulars as may be proscribed. An authentic copy of such scheme, signed by the Secretary of the Board, shall be lodged in the offices of the Land Commission in the time and manner prescribed, together with a statement under the hand of the aforesaid secretary, setting forth in detail the facts which, in the opinion of said Board, establish that the land sufficient and suitable for the aforesaid purpose cannot be acquired by voluntary purchase at a reasonable price.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved to leave out the words "with the consent of the owner, proceed to inspect such land as may seem suitable for their purposes, and ascertain the amount which the owner thereof may demand for the sale to them of such land, and if the owner shall refuse such consent to inspection, or to state the price which he would accept for said land, such refusal shall be held to be sufficient grounds for the Congested Districts Board proceeding as hereinafter provided. If they are satisfied that land sufficient and suitable for that purpose cannot be acquired on their behalf by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price, they may." He said his Amendment was, as it seemed to him, really more one of drafting than of substance. It was a question as to the way in which the Congested Districts Board should deal with voluntary purchases. The scheme as originally drafted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, included negotiations with the Congested Districts Board under Clause 50, but later on he amended Clause 46, subsection (3), so as to make voluntary transactions take place under that section of the Bill. If that were so there would be tautology in the second proposal, and, in addition, there would be the objection that while Clause 46 handed over to the Estates Commissioners all purchase transactions, Clause 50, in the part which he proposed to cut out, would give to the Congested Districts Board the function also of negotiating land purchase. There would be a conflict on those points which he thought it desirable to avoid in the way he suggested.
Amendment moved—
"In page 25, line 23, to leave out from the word 'may' to the word 'submit' in line 32."—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON concurred with the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved to omit from the end of Clause 50 the words "together with a statement under the hand of the aforesaid secretary, setting forth in detail the facts which, in the opinion of said Board, establish that the land sufficient and suitable for the aforesaid purpose cannot be acquired by voluntary purchase at a reasonable price." He said that as it stood it seemed to him to be the remains of a state of things which had been changed in the Bill. In his view it was not for the Congested Districts Board to anticipate the decision which the Estates Commissioners might conic to, or in any way to interfere with their procedure in purchasing land whether by voluntary or compulsory acquisition. As he read the Bill as it now stood, the Congested Districts Board applied to the Estates Commissioners to purchase a particular estate or parcel of land from them, and whether the Estates Commissioners proceeded in the first instance by voluntary purchase, as of course they would, or whether they proceeded by the compulsory method provided for in Part IV of the Bill, was a matter for the Estates Commissioners and not for the Congested Districts Board. For that reason it seemed to him that the words in question were out of place, in that particular connection.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, line 2, to leave out from 'prescribed' to the end of the clause."—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON had some difficulty in following the meaning of the noble Lord. Was his Amendment dealing with the preliminary stages of compulsory purchase? The Congested Districts Board prepared a scheme and sent it to the Land Commission, and the scheme must be accompanied by a statement under the hand of the secretary setting forth the reasons why the Congested Districts Board wanted compulsory powers. That was part and parcel of the compulsory machinery, and had nothing to do with the acquisition of land by voluntary agreement. The Estates Commissioners then came to a conclusion as to whether or not it was necessary to apply the compulsory powers. In his opinion it was essential that these words should be retained.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved an Amendment in Clause 51. The commencing words of the clause were—
51. The Estates Commissioners shall consider the said scheme and the matters set forth in the said statement and if satisfied that it is primâ facie necessary that the land therein mentioned should be acquired compulsorily for the purposes therein set forth, shall proceed so to acquire the Same in manner hereinafter provided.
The noble Lord moved to leave out the words "the said scheme and." He said that inasmuch as the whole of the land purchase work had been handed over to the Estates Commissioners, the question of considering whether the scheme submitted was a proper scheme having regard to the necessity of acquiring the land was no longer a matter for the Estates Commissioners. They should receive the scheme and act in a ministerial capacity in carrying out the scheme, acquiring the land, issuing the notifications, ascertaining what the price to be paid for the land should be, and calling upon people to make their objections. When the objections were lodged in the Estates Commissioners' office, then the functions of the tribunal arose. All those objections would be handed over to the tribunal, and the tribunal would decide upon them; but if these words remained in this part of the Bill they would in the first instance have the Estates Commissioners considering the proposals of the Congested Districts Board, and considering whether or not the proposals were suitable for the purpose they had in view, and generally passing judgment upon the proposals of the Congested Districts Board. He would deprecate the Estates Commissioners taking up that position. In a former phase of the scheme it was right that they should do so, but now, as the tribunal had been established, it was their duty to consider whether or not the scheme was a proper one having regard to the interests of the parties. Whether or not the scheme was a proper one for the relief of congestion was a matter for the Congested Districts Board to consider. The Estates Commissioners were not in a position to form an opinion as to the suitability of the scheme for the purposes of receiving congestion. Their functions were to buy the land, and if any objections were made to their buying it they had to suspend their operations until the objections had been decided upon by the tribunal which had` been established. When the tribunal passed its orders either for or against the objections, a new state of things arose. If the tribunal said that the
346
objections were to prevail, then the whole thing would fall to the ground. If they overruled the objections, then the activity of the Estates Commissioners began again, and they would proceed to acquire the land. Then objections to price might be made, and in that case the Court which had to fix the price came into operation. The words he proposed to cut out seemed to him to give to the Estates Commissioners the discretion of passing a judgment upon the scheme as submitted to them, and that, he thought, was not desirable in the circumstances.
Amendment moved—
"In page 26, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'the said scheme and.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the subject had been discussed and decided several times. The Amendment of the noble Lord would leave things in the extraordinary position that the Estates Commissioner were to consider not the scheme, if those words were left out, but the matters set forth in the statement. They had had a discussion on innumerable occasions, and their Lordships had decided that the Estates Commissioners were in the first instance, on the consideration of the scheme and the statement accompanying it, to make out a primâ facie case for the compulsory acquisition of the land. The Amendment of the noble Lord simply knocked the thing to pieces again.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD moved an Amendment to substitute the County Court Judge for the Land Judge as a member of the tribunal to hear and determine objections under the compulsory provisions. He said his reason for substituting the County Court Judge was that it was very desirable that local knowledge should be possessed in such cases and the County Court Judge had that knowledge. Moreover, in the intervals of the Sessions Courts the County Court Judges in Ireland had a good deal of leisure and that could be very usefully turned to account in these adjudications. The County Court Judges were all men of standing, of great impartiality, and with very great local knowledge, while the Land Judge was restricted to Dublin and to a different class of case from those that would come before him under the Bill. The only advantage he could see in keeping

347
the Land Judge in was that he was always in Dublin, and it was desirable that he tribunal should be in a place where all the members could easily assemble; but, as he had said, County Court Judges had very considerable leisure and he thought it could be turned to account without disadvantage to suitors or litigants in the matter. His principal object was to secure for the tribunal some local knowledge; and inasmuch as their Lordships' House was not satisfied with a tribunal consisting of the Judicial Commissioner, a Judge of the High Court, and one of the Estates Commissioners, he thought the proposal which he now made was perhaps the best substitute which could be suggested.
Amendment moved—
"In page 27, line 9, to leave out 'land judge,' and to insert 'county court judge within whose jurisdiction the land or part thereof is situated.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said that as he had been responsible for introducing the Land Judge into the clause he would like to say a few words about it. He could not agree at all with the noble Lord that a County Court Judge would be a good substitute for the Land Judge. Everybody in Ireland had complete confidence in the High Court Judges, but he thought that perhaps the least said about some of the County Court Judges in Ireland the better. He would rather not say anything about that; but he thought it was very desirable that they should have High Court Judges to decide the very important questions which would come under their jurisdiction in a clause of this kind. If there was any difficulty about the Land Judge, he thought it might be got over by putting in a second Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court. He was of opinion, however, that noble Lords on his side of the House would strongly object to putting in a County Court Judge in place of a Judge of the High Court.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he would be very sorry if in discussing the Amendment anything was suggested reflecting on the County Court Judges of Ireland, who were an excellent body of gentlemen entitled to every regard and respect. As he gathered from his noble friend opposite, Lord MacDonnell's point about the Land Judge was that he did not think that the particular selection of the Land Judge—without any disparagement to Mr. Justice Ross—was one that on the whole would lead to permanent
348
satisfaction. It was open to the remark that by a resolution of the House of Commons passed a few years ago it was agreed that there should not be a successor to Mr. Justice Ross. He did not know the exact position, but he believed that that was so, and if there should cease in the fulness of time to be a Land Judge, there would be fresh legislation needed. That was a matter which showed that the question of the constitution of the tribunal was one that required care. Lord Dunboyne who had studied the question a good deal, did not seem to be permanently wedded to the idea of a Land Judge, and he suggested that another Judge of the High Court should be introduced, but he did not say whether he was to be a rota Judge or how the idea was to be worked out.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that he had four short Amendments which would follow the noble Lord's Amendment to omit "and the Land Judge" and to say that the Court was to consist of the Judicial Commissioner and two Judges. If he was in order in doing so, and he thought he was, he would be quite prepared, as there seemed to be an opinion on his side of the House that the Land Judge should be struck out, to move an Amendment to the Amendment to substitute for the Land Judge two Judges of the High Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ashbourne, had expressed a very high opinion of the County Court Judges. That was an opinion which a Royal Commission that sat under Sir Edward Fry did not hold. On page 9 of their Report they said—
"With reference to the action of County Court Judges on questions of value in rent cases, some of the Judges endeavour to form an independent opinion as to the sum proper to be fixed, but the majority of them feel themselves incapable of doing so, and in the absence of evident mistake do nothing but adopt and register the finding of their value."
That was the opinion of a Royal Commission presided over by a most distinguished Judge, and he felt very strongly that County Court Judges were not the right people for such a tribunal as was proposed under the Bill.
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
"In page 27, line 9, to leave out 'and the Land Judge' and in the same line to leave out 'the Judge' and to insert 'two Judges'; in line 10 to leave out 'is' and to insert 'are'; and in line 13, to leave out 'the said last-mentioned Judge shall preside.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to add to subsection (5), which their Lordships had just amended, the words contained in his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 27, line 13, after '1907,' to insert the words 'while the said rota shall continue in force, and from thenceforth, together with the Judges of the said Division, who shall be next in order on a rota similar in character to the former, which the Judges of the said Division are hereby authorised and empowered to frame for the purposes of this Act.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE, in moving the insertion of a new clause after Clause 52, said that his Amendment followed the precedent of the Act of 1903, by which it was possible to compensate an agent for the loss of his business or for other reasons if the landlord desired it out of the purchase money. It was their desire to have such a power in a case of compulsory sale, just as they had it and exercised it in the case of a voluntary sale. A land agent in Ireland, as their Lordships were well aware, was in a very different position as a rule from that of an agent in other parts of the United Kingdom. He had to be, under their terribly complicated land system, a very skilled man with great technical knowledge, and the operation of the Purchase Acts, of course, resulted in his losing a profession to become a member of which he had gone through a very special training, and one which, as far as he knew, did not assist him in qualifying for any other occupation. He had before him a dozen precedents for what he was asking, and he hoped the Government would be able to favourably regard the matter. He did not pretend that he thought they would, because the agents were essentially landlords' men and the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the case of the Evicted Tenants Bill showed that at any rate they were not very strongly prejudiced in favour of the friends of landlords. These men had been their friends and staunch supporters through thick and thin for a great many years, and he did feel that they should at any rate take an enabling power to com-
350
pensate them after very often many years of faithful service. He earnestly appealed to their Lordships to keep the Bill in harmony with the Act of 1903, which gave the power of compensating those people to whom they were under such considerable obligations.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following now clause—
'53. In the case of the acquisition of land compulsorily, such sum as the vendor may approve and the Land Commission may sanction shall be paid out of the purchase money to the land agent of the estate on which such land is situated or to the negotiator for the purposes of the sale (if any) and the said agent or negotiator shall give the Land Commission such information as may be required by them after all questions in connection with the compulsory acquisition of the land shall have been finally determined.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl said that his Amendment followed the precedent of the Act of 1903, and he also said something about power being given under that Act to compensate an agent for loss of business. I think it ought to be clearly understood that under the Act of 1903 the payment is not made in consideration of loss of business, but is made in consideration of negotiating the sale.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that, in practice, it was in consideration of loss of business.
THE EARL OF CREWE: When an estate is compulsorily bought the sale is not negotiated by the agent, and ex hypothesi it is quite possible that he may have done his best to prevent it. It seems to me, therefore, that the analogy of the Act of 1903 really breaks down there. The arguments which the noble Earl has used, I confess, do not convince me that in a case of this kind the agent has a special claim. Supposing the property to be bought is held in fee simple the vendor can give the agent as much as he pleases out of the purchase money. The effect of the Amendment is, of course, that where the estate is not held in fee simple but under a settlement where the remainder would naturally go to the remainder man, part of it would go to the agent. It would also, I suppose, be used as an argument for increasing the price of the land by saying, "If the land is worth so much to the landlord he ought to get

351
it, and the agent ought to be paid a separate sum." I do not say the argument would be a very good one, but it might certainly be used in asking for a higher price, and for those reasons we are not disposed to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl is incorrect when he thinks that the task of the agent in the case of a sale under compulsion would be a much lighter one than in the case of a voluntary sale. The agent throughout the difficult negotiations which inevitably would precede any compulsory sale would watch his principal's interest, and he might have extremely difficult and responsible work to do. But the real fact is that under my noble friend's clause this payment cannot be made without both the consent of the vendor and the consent of the Land Commission being obtained. Surely with these reservations there can be no great risk of an improper payment being made to the agent, or one in excess of the value of the services which he has rendered.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE did not know whether the noble Earl had considered the proposition from the point of view of the workings of human nature. In a compulsory sale it was obvious that there must be some intermediary to do a great many things and to interchange a great many topics, and the man who could do that best would be the agent managing the property, who knew all about it and who could point out its advantages and smooth the way in a difficult and not always agreeable transaction. He questioned whether people who desired to make a compulsory sale were wise to exclude the assistance, and, it might be, the reasonable co-operation, of one who knew more about the business than anybody else.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE was of opinion that the Land Commission would be gainers by the new clause, because there was a provision that the agent should give the Land Commission all information, so that he really might be considered a paid servant of the Land Commission in giving them information about the property which probably nobody else would be in a position to give.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment to Clause 53 agreed to.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved an Amendment to include within Clause 53 land held under any contract of tenancy and not deemed under the provisions of the Bill to be untenanted land. He said his object was to make it clear that tenanted land was not included.
Amendment moved—
"In page 28, line 39, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection—
'(2) Is land held under any contract of tenancy, and not deemed under the provisions of this Act to be untenanted land; or '"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
TIIE EARL OF CREWE: I understand it is the intention of noble Lords opposite that only untenanted land should be taken, and the noble Lord's Amendment, no doubt, carries that out. As the Bill stands without this Amendment, land held on yearly tenancy could be taken, and feus could be taken, and various other kinds of land. We do not accept the principle of the clause, but supposing it to be the object of noble Lords that only untenanted land should be taken and nothing else in any circumstances, no doubt the Amendment carries it into effect.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON thought the Amendment of his noble friend was a little too wide. It would be competent, for example, to any owner of grazing land after the Bill was passed to let the whole of his land to anybody, perhaps a relative of his own, at a nominal rent provided he was a bona fide tenant, and that was not intended. If his noble friend saw no objection, he would propose as an Amendment to the Amendment the following, "land not deemed untenanted under the provisions of this Act, held by a tenant under a bona fide contract of tenancy entered into before the first day of October, 1909, and by him used or cultivated as a farm, or part of a farm, according to a reasonable course of husbandry." He presumed his noble friend intended that the land of a bona fide tenant, a person who was now a tenant and who had cultivated it, should not be taken, but he also presumed that he did not intend that a person who might be created a tenant after the passing of the Act should be exempt. If that was so, the whole system of the compulsory acquisition of

353
land would be rendered absolutely nugatory.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said it appeared to him that his noble friend's Amendment to his Amendment would have the effect of preventing anybody in future from letting any untenanted land. He much preferred his own Amendment as it stood.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSPOWNE: Before the question is put, perhaps we lay members of the House might ask for a little more information as to the effect of these different formulas. What I take it we desire is that a bona fide sitting tenant should enjoy immunity from the application of compulsion. The precise way of arriving at that result is a thing which I would not undertake to suggest to the House, but it does seem to me a simple proposition, and that it would not be beyond our powers to find simple words in which to express it.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he would undertake to find the words if he had the idea. He did not know whether the noble Marquess meant that a bona fide tenant who was hereafter created should be exempt or whether he meant that a person must be a bona fide tenant at the passing of the Act, or at some other date.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is only by the indulgence of the House that I can answer my noble friend's question. In my view a tenant who after the passing of this Act has taken bona fide a parcel of previously untenanted land and who is cultivating it in a husbandlike manner would be a tenant who should enjoy immunity from compulsory purchase.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said that all that would be necessary to carry out his noble friend's idea would be to strike out the words, "entered into before the first day of October, 1909."
The Amendment to the Amendment was then altered to read—
"Land not deemed untenanted under the provisions of this Act, held by a tenant under a bona fide contract of tenancy and by him used or cultivated as a farm, or part of a farm, according to a reasonable course of husbandry."
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved a further Amendment to strike out the provision that and in the occupation of an owner within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts should not be acquired compulsorily. He said this was a point which most curiously had seemed to escape the notice of noble Lords on his side of the House, and he must assume it had also escaped the attention of noble Lords opposite, otherwise they would have called attention to it, because it was a manifest slip. The effect of the words he moved to omit was to exclude practically all the untenanted land in Ireland, and he thought that was not the intention of any noble Lord on his side of the House.
Amendment moved—
"In page 29, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'in the occupation of an owner within the meaning of the aforesaid Land Purchase Acts, or which is, '"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM moved an Amendment to subsection (4) of Clause 53, providing that if the annual rateable value of a farm of the kind described in the subsection exceeded £200 the compulsory provisions of this part of the Act should apply only to such a proportion of the farm as might be found to represent a rateable valuation in excess of £200.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the words 'Provided that if the annual rateable value of said farm shall exceed two hundred pounds the compulsory provisions of this part of this Act shall apply only to such a proportion of the farm as may be found to represent a rateable valuation in excess of two hundred pounds, and the Estates Commissioners may divide the farm and apportion the valuation, subject, however, to the provisions of this part of this Act respecting the hearing of objections and the fixing of prices.'"—(The Earl of Clanwilliam.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The objection which the noble Earl has pointed out to the clause as it stands is indeed one of substance, because it draws a harsh dividing line between one farm and another; but it is only fair to point out that if the noble Earl's Amendment is accepted the power of buying farms of this kind will be greatly limited, because the damages that would be asked for in respect of severance would in many cases be of such a kind and of such an amount that it would prevent the Estates Commissioners

355
from engaging in attempts to buy compulsorily at all. And for this reason, that, as a rule, I take it, if a man had, say, a really large farm of £400 valuation, and there was a question of taking half of it, it is possible that he would greatly prefer to have the whole taken. Looking at it from those two distinct points of view, I fear that the operations of the Commissioners as regards this particular sort of land would be greatly limited by the noble Earl's Amendment.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said that if a man had only 200 acres of a farm it was rather hard, if he happened to be the owner in fee, that it should be considered untenanted land, and be liable to be taken away from him. He quite saw the point of view taken by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that the man might prefer the whole of it to be taken; and they might put in a proviso to the effect that if a vendor required it, the Estates Commissioners who wished to take a part of his farm should take the whole, just as was done with land taken under the Lands Clauses Act. It was very hard if a man's farm was rated at £201 a year he could have the whole of it taken away from him as untenanted land, whereas if it was rated at £200, he would not have an acre taken from him. He was sure Lord Clanwilliam would be very glad to have a proviso of that sort inserted, that if a vendor desired to sell the whole of his farm when the Estates Commissioners designed only to take a part, he should be at liberty to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved to omit from subsection (4) the word "and" ["adjoining and customarily"] and to substitute "or." The provision would then read—
"The Estates Commissioners shall, in the case of untenanted land, avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the land, or with any home farm, or land immediately adjoining or customarily occupied with his residence, &c."
Amendment moved—
"In page 29, line 24, to leave out the word 'and,' and to insert 'or'"—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I would call the attention of the House to the fact that in the Evicted Tenants Bill, from which
356
this is taken, the word is "and" as it is in the Bill, and not "or." Therefore we cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE thought the word "or" was a great improvement upon "and."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 56:
56. Subject to the provisions of section fifty, clause four, land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee-farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, or a lease for a term of years of which not less than sixty are unexpired, shall for the purposes of the Act of 1903, the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, and this Act, be deemed to be untenanted land.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved to leave out the words "fifty, clause four," and to insert the words "fifty-three, paragraph four."
Amendment moved—
"In page 30, line 23, to leave out 'fifty, clause four,' and to insert 'fifty three, paragraph four.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved a new clause for the purpose of relieving the Congested Districts Board from the necessity of stating in the notice served upon a tenant that the new holding with which the Board undertook to provide him should be situated in the same or an adjacent or neighbouring estate. He said that the noble Earl the Leader of the House stated, when this matter was before their Lordships on Report that he could not accept the Amendment in its then form. He (Lord MacDonnell) had endeavoured to alter the Amendment and he hoped it would be more acceptable to His Majesty's Government in its present form. The meaning was this. When the Congested Districts Board bought an estate and found that in order to improve the condition of the tenants on the estate it was necessary to migrate some of them, they issued a notice in which they gave a promise that they would provide the tenant whom they removed, and whom their Lordships now authorised them to remove without his consent, with a holding of similar value on the same or on some adjacent or neighbouring estate. As they had now enabled the Congested Districts

357
Board to acquire land in certain circumstances compulsorily and at a distance, it would be impossible, if these words were retained, to carry out migration on any large scale. It would be impossible to always find, on the same or on an adjacent or neighbouring estate, land which the tenant who was to be removed could obtain. It might be necessary for the Congested Districts Board to remove tenants to a distance of eight or ten miles or more, and unless that power was given to the Board nothing like migration on a large scale would be possible. He thought his new clause was a necessary consequence of the clause their Lordships had already adopted in approving of the compulsory acquisition of land in certain circumstances. Hitherto, the Congested Districts Board had been compelled to buy estates where they could find them close to the holdings which they wanted to improve. Of course, the owners of those estates had a monopoly. The Board could not remove people to a distance, and consequently the Board was always compelled to buy estates at a high price; but now, as compulsory power had been given, it would be no longer necessary to acquire land in the neighbourhood of the estates to be improved. If land could be found in the neighbourhood, of course, it was better that it should be bought; but it was not always possible to find land in the place where it was wanted. He submitted that unless their Lordships accepted this new clause or something like it migration on a large scale would be impossible.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 56, to insert the following new clause—
'57. Notwithstanding anything contained in section one, subsection (2) of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act of 1901, the Congested Districts Board shall not be required to state in the notice served upon any tenant that the now holding with which the Board undertakes to provide him, shall be situated in the same or an adjacent or neighbouring estate.'"—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: We have always applauded the noble Lord's object in this clause, but we did not think as he first drafted it that it would carry out his intention, or would be construed by a Court of law as doing so. I think in the form in which he has now put it, it might well be added to the Bill.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said it was obvious
358
that this proposed clause would have a very discouraging effect on a tenant when he received notice. Up to now he had been informed that he would be given a holding on an adjacent or a neighbouring estate. Of course it was rather a gratifying thing for a man to hear that he was not going to be shifted off to a place remote, where he would have no friends, and where he would know nothing of the locality. If it was not to be necessary to state in the notice anything about the land that the tenant was to be offered, would the noble Lord say what the notice was to contain?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: It is prescribed in the Act.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said it would have been a convenience for the purposes of the discussion if the noble Lord had stated what the section was that he was seeking to amend. The noble Lord had drawn upon all the knowledge he had in reference to the matter, but he (Lord Ashbourne) thought it might lead to bad blood in the country if a man was told that he was to leave his place and was not salved by being informed that he would be given a holding of a greater or of the same value in the neighbourhood.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved to delete from Clause 57 the words "Part V. of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Law Acts, and may be cited with those Acts."
Amendment moved—
"In page 30, to leave out lines 35 and 36."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE had an Amendment on the Paper in subsection (3) of the First Schedule—
(3) In the case of the purchase of a parcel of untenanted land, and in any case where the amount advanced is less than the purchase money, the number of years purchase represented by the advance shall be calculated in manner prescribed by the Treasury,
to insert, after the words "untenanted land," the words "the number of years' purchase represented by the advance

359
shall be calculated—(a) In the case of land that has been let for periods of less than one year, or that has been let for purposes of agistment for any period, at the rent or annual sum that has been paid for same on an average of the preceding five years; (b) in the case of land that has not been so let, the rent thereof (for the purposes of estimating the number of years purchase) shall be taken to be (at the option of the vendor) either—(1) the average net annual profit for the preceding five years, as shown by the vendor's accounts; or (2) the fair annual value thereof, to be ascertained by arbitration, as nearly as may be, in the manner provided by Section 25 of the schedule of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870." He said he had put the Amendment down in the hope of getting some satisfaction from His Majesty's Government, and he was glad to see that the noble Earl the Leader of the House intended to move an Amendment on the subject, which, at any rate, was half a loaf. He assumed that the noble Earl intended to move his Amendment, and that being so, he (Lord Donoughmore) did not intend to trouble their Lordships with his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I move to add the following words to the end of subsection (3) of the First Schedule, "regard being had in the case of untenanted land to the fair annual value of the land to the owner." The subsection will then read, "In the case of the purchase of a parcel of untenanted land, and in any case where the amount advanced is less than the purchase money, the number of years' purchase represented by the advance shall be calculated in manner prescribed by the Treasury, regard being had in the case of untenanted land to the fair annual value of the land to the owner." I may say with regard to this Amendment that it carries out what I stated was the intention of the Treasury in dealing with this matter, and I think noble Lords will see that so far as untenanted land is concerned it does give a complete safeguard to a vendor so far as regards this particular question of a graduated bonus. If there is a question of selling untenanted land, as regards the lump sum to be obtained for it there may be a question of how many years purchase that lump sum ought to represent, owing to various causes, but whatever calculation was made it could only have the effect of
360
reducing the number of years. It could not have the effect of reducing the sum. As the bonus is in inverse ratio to the number of years, the result, I think, apparently will be, that where a considerable rent is now obtained for untenanted land, even though the whole purchase money might not represent what noble Lords would consider an adequate sum, yet the bonus is bound to be a good one, because the bonus increases in proportion as the number of years are reduced.
Amendment moved—
"In page 31, line 32, at the end of the line, to insert the words 'regard being had in the case of untenanted land to the fair annual value of the land to the owner.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I only rise for the purpose of expressing our obligation to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having moved these words. We were extremely anxious it should appear on the face of the Bill that in all these transactions with regard to untenanted land the point of departure should be the value of such land to the owner, and not any other standard of value such as has been occasionally mentioned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments to the Second Schedule agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill do pass, I desire because I think it is my duty to do so, to make one or two—they shall be very few—observations on its general position. So far as the financial provisions of the measure are concerned, the Amendments carried by your Lordships' House have not been very extensive. That, I think, is due to two reasons. The first is that it is a long standing custom of your Lordships' House not to amend extensively financial provisions of this kind, or indeed of any kind; and the second reason, a not less good one, is that the financial provisions—whatever exception may be taken to them, here and there, by noble Lords opposite—provide a very large further sum for the necessities of Irish land purchase. But in other respects the Amendments which the House has seen fit to carry are of a very far-reaching character indeed.
So far as land purchase is concerned, the provisions which, while desiring fully to

361
safeguard the existence of the zones, the usefulness of which we admit, we introduced in order to prevent evasion of the Act of 1903, evasion which has arisen in some cases and may arise in more with regard to purchase within the zones, thus adversely affecting the security of the nation for these purchases—these provisions have been struck out of the Bill by your Lordships. Then the limitation which we proposed on advances for purchase has been very rudely dealt with by your Lordships. Not only have you altered our figure from £3,000 to £5,000, but under one head you have done what the Act of 1903 never did—namely, to permit an absolutely unlimited amount to be advanced by the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of farms. Then your Lordships have also altered the provisions which were inserted for the exclusion of new tenancies made after January, 1908—tenancies, indeed, some of which may have been created for the very purpose of defeating the provisions of our Bill.
Then as regards the congested districts, your Lordships have turned our proposals altogether inside out. We proposed to give a large extra sum for the purposes of the Congested Districts Board, and that sum will still remain payable under the Bill as amended. But it must not be forgotten that the advance of that sum coheres in our Bill with the other changes which we proposed to make with regard to the Board. The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Atkinson, when I pointed out on a previous occasion that this might be so, said, I think, that it was the first time he had heard that a further increase in income was the price of the extinction of the Board. Surely, my Lords, it is not altogether an unknown thing, when you increase and widen the functions of a public body and entrust it with largely increased sums for the purpose of exercising those functions, that its composition should, in some degree, be altered. That is what we proposed to do. We proposed to alter the composition of the Board. In respect to that alteration of the composition of the Board, I ought to say that we proposed to increase its area, and while taking away some of its functions and handing them over to a body particularly well fitted to exercise them—the Board of Agriculture—we increased its powers in other respects. Well, all that has been altered by your Lordships.
It is true that after a serious amount of
362
discussion and strong opposition from many noble Lords from Ireland, the principle of compulsion has just been admitted into the Bill—just barely admitted in as limited a district as possible, and under the closest restrictions which the ingenuity of the legal minds of noble and learned Lords could most laboriously devise. I still think that in the interests of noble Lords and other Irish landlords, as well as in the general interest of the community, the House would have been well advised if it accepted the principle of compulsion at all, to admit its application all over Ireland. The distinction as regards its particular operation between the congested districts and the rest of Ireland seems to me to be needlessly invidious, and undesirable, therefore, from the landowners' point of view no less than from that of the public. Now when purchases in this form, if they can ever take place at all, are limited to untenanted land absolutely and to the congested districts, the provision, I am afraid, will not be of very real service.
Looking back on all the changes you have made in the Bill, I cannot help feeling that the difference between our measure and your Lordships' measure is this. We did not hope that any measure applying to land in Ireland, after the varied experiences of the last forty years, could be regarded as an absolutely final measure, but we did hope that in this Bill we had made provision for an order of things which would last without serious change or amendment for a considerable time to come. We hoped, at any rate, that we had laid down general rules which would see land purchase through. As your Lordships have amended the Bill, this most distinctly is not the case. As the Bill has been restricted by these Amendments, even though you may consider all the restrictions necessary, you cannot deny that it leaves room for cases of individual complaint at almost every point, whether it be on the zones, whether it be with regard to particular land which it may be desirable to purchase compulsorily and which cannot be acquired owing to the numerous safeguards, whether it be the cases such as those which the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, refused to admit existed—cases where a landlord refused to sell though his tenants might desire to buy, quite apart from any question of the relief of congestion—cases which, as we are given to understand, exist in that part of Ireland which the noble Lord knows best, and in respect of which the

363
provisions for compulsory purchase have had the support of the Ulster Members of Parliament as a whole. All through, as I venture to think, the extreme care which your Lordships have taken to safeguard all these different provisions for the acquirement of land and a great many other objects will bring up a crop of hard cases and complaints and demands for further legislation.
If the Bill in its present state were to become law, I venture to predict that if not next year, then the year after, you would have, I do not say a violent, but an extensive and strong demand for some further amendment of the Irish land laws. We in this country are all of us sick of attempting to amend the Irish land laws, and we look forward with dismay to the prospect of leaving almost every question, and sub-question, if I may use the phrase, open for further discussion and possibly further amendment in the way that your Lordships have done. Consequently I greatly regret that the Bill has taken the form it has, one so very different from that in which it came up to us. We said, and we felt, that there were points on which it was reasonable to expect that your Lordships, looking at the matter from an entirely different point of view from ours, necessarily, would desire to make Amendments, and to that desire, even though we might not always agree, we should not take exception; but it is a serious matter to find a Bill so utterly altered in outline and substance as it is by the Amendments which your Lordships' House has made.
I am sure I shall not be misunderstood in what I am going to say. Is it not, my Lords, an unfortunate fact that a discussion of this kind, lasting for many days, should be exclusively carried on by noble Lords from Ireland? Would it not have been possible for some noble Lord, an Englishman, and therefore conceivably able to take a more impartial view than noble Lords opposite, to have got up the subject—I admit a most complicated and even repulsive one—and to have given your Lordships' House the benefit of an opinion of a somewhat different kind from that with which we have been favoured all through these debates? Noble Lords opposite expressed their opinions, some strongly, some gently, but they are all opinions from one single point of view. It is not too much to say that what we have had has not been the House of Lords, but a Grand Committee composed of noble
364
Lords who own land in Ireland or are interested in land-owning in Ireland. That being so, I make no complaint of the manner in which the views of noble Lords have been advanced, but I think when it comes to the question of the authority attaching to such sweeping Amendments as those that have been made, that authority must suffer greatly in the eyes of the public and, if you like to put it so, in the eyes of those in another place, from the fact of it being founded on and limited to one kind of opinion, and, I say it with no offence, in many cases interested opinion. I trust there is no offence in saying that, because we all must be personally interested in something, and it may happen from time to time that Bills come up affecting our particular interest. Apart from this particular measure, I cannot help thinking that I shall find concurrence among noble Lords opposite when I say that so far as the reputation of this House is concerned the more noble Lords who are not thus directly interested in a subject can come forward and take some part in its discussion, endeavour to understand it, and endeavour to give us the benefit of their advice upon it, the more will your Lordships be fulfilling the real functions of a Second Chamber, and the greater the authority which such changes that you may think fit to make in Bills will receive outside. I can only repeat once more my regret that the form of the Bill has been so largely altered, and, of course, I cannot pretend to say what view may be taken in another place of many of the Amendments which your Lordships have thought fit to make.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Earl made one complaint which struck me as rather a singular one. He dwelt upon the fact that this debate had been carried on mainly by noble Lords connected with Ireland. I should have thought noble Lords connected with Ireland were, above all people, those whom one would expect to take a conspicuous part in the discussion. If it is the case which I think the noble Earl is justified in saying—that Peers unconnected with Ireland have given the matter, if I may so put it, rather a wide berth, I think there are some very obvious explanations. The noble Earl himself, I think, in the course of his remarks, observed that this subject was one which had become intensely

365
wearisome to many people, owing to the number of sessions in which it has played a conspicuous part, and may I suggest to the noble Earl that it is only those unfortunate people who have been almost compelled in self-defence to follow the intricate course of all this Irish legislation, who are able to take a part in it.
I stated the other evening, and I was not contradicted, that I had been informed that in the last twenty-five years something like twenty-five Irish Land Bills have been passed. Is it expected that noble Lords entirely unconnected with Ireland are to take the trouble to obtain even a superficial acquaintance with that great body of Irish legislation which we Irishmen are compelled, much to our regret, to acquire? But if when we have a military debate it is carried on mainly by noble Lords connected with the Army, or a Naval debate by noble Lords interested in Admiralty administration, why is not an Irish debate to be carried on by noble Lords specially interested in Ireland? I must say that that reproach does not greatly affect me. Although I detest the kind of argument which is usually described as a tu quoque, may I be allowed to call attention to the fact that I do not think the noble Earl who has very gallantly conducted this Bill through these debates received very much support from the English Peers on his side of the House? With the sole exception of my noble friend on the Back Bench, Lord MacDonnell, who spoke with a thorough knowledge of the subject which entitles all that he says to our utmost attention, I do not think the noble Earl was assisted by any of his usual supporters on the Back Benches; and it even went so far as this—that, in a division which the noble Earl described as affecting a cardinal point in the Bill, he carried with him into the Lobby about fourteen or fifteen only of his supporters. Where, I ask, on that occasion were those numerous recruits who have lately joined the Army opposite? I will say no more upon that subject.
The noble Earl admitted that, so far as the finance of the Bill was concerned, your Lordships have dealt respectfully with that part of the measure. I think I may certainly say that some of those who sit behind me felt a great reluctance to interfere with the delicate and complicated financial machinery of the Bill. Besides, we were animated by
366
the feeling that, after all, these proposals some of which were not received with rapturous gratitude by my noble friends, were the only means before us for preventing land purchase in Ireland, which we have always regarded as the one remedy for the evils of that country, from dying of inanition, and therefore we certainly did not desire to impede in any way the passage of that part of the Bill.
Now just one word as to some of the points on which the noble Earl touched. He referred to our treatment of the question of the zones. Again and again on these Benches we expressed our readiness to support any well-considered proposal which the noble Earl and his advisers might bring before the House for the purpose of dealing with the question of evasion in connection with the application of the zones. The noble Earl told us again and again that the cases were extremely rare, and we challenged him to produce words calculated to deal with the particular sort of evasion of which he complained, but the only definite proposal which we were able to obtain from His Majesty's Government was a proposal which, beyond all question, would have thrown the zones into the melting-pot, and which would have given none of the parties the security and the protection which they now enjoy under the zone system. Then the noble Earl complained of the manner in which we had dealt with the size of the grants or advances which may be made to tenant purchasers. There we did differ from the noble Earl upon a question of principle. Throughout the proposals of the Government we detected, and I think we were right in detecting, a desire to bring all the holdings in Ireland to a dead level, which would not admit the existence of any of those larger holdings which add so much to the prosperity and to the stability of agricultural communities in whatever part of the world they may be found. We do not think, particularly now that the position of owners of land in Ireland has been so seriously impaired, that it would be a good thing for that country that there should be no large occupiers of land from one end of the country to the other.
Then the noble Earl came to our treatment of those clauses which had reference to the congested districts. The noble Earl said that, in view of the large sum to be granted for the relief of congestion, it was only natural and logical that the

367
constitution of the Congested Districts Board should be fundamentally altered. I do not greatly differ from the noble Earl, and if it had been merely a question of some modification of the composition of the Board, such as, for example, that which was discussed this afternoon, the addition of a paid member or members or some reasonable change in the tenure of the members of the Board, I should have been very much inclined to accept his proposals. But what did we find in this Bill? We found a Board the constitution of which—I assure the noble Earl I do not say it in any offensive spirit—was the laughing stock of every one who had to undertake the criticism of this Bill. The handling of these enormous sums of money, the distribution of land amongst all the numerous applicants for it—all this patronage was to be handed over to a body of which the majority were to be popularly elected, and which any one with the slightest knowledge of Irish affairs would be aware was on the face of it, the most improper body you could select for the purpose of dispensing a colossal patronage of that kind. I will not labour that point further, because that particular proposal was, if I may say so, completely and absolutely demolished by the remarkable document added to the Report of the Dudley Commission by my noble friend on the Back Bench, Lord MacDonnell.
The noble Earl also took exception to the manner in which we had treated the allocation of the duties which are to be henceforth undertaken on the one hand by the Congested Districts Board and on the other by the Land Commission. I am unrepentant upon that point. I believe that the distribution of duties which will take effect under the Bill as it now stands is a much more logical distribution and one much more calculated to lead to an efficient discharge of the business which these important bodies will have to conduct. I will not again remind the House of the fact that the Congested Districts Board was, at first, in sole possession of the field, and that long after it had begun its useful labours we created the Department of Agriculture and Industries, which overlapped it at many points. We also passed the Land Purchase Act of 1903 which introduced brand-new machinery, and it was surely obvious that the time had come when a complete revision of the functions of these different authorities had
368
become absolutely necessary. Such a revision we have attempted and I believe that the Bill as it now stands is, upon that point at all events, a very reasonable and effective measure.
The most serious count in the noble Earl's indictment was that we had, as he put it, barely admitted into the Bill the principle of compulsion. It is quite true that compulsion as it now finds a place in the Bill is a very different thing from the kind of compulsion which was apparently contemplated by the framers of the measure. But do not let your Lordships forget that the noble Earl again and again in the course of his speeches insisted upon the fact that in his view the power of compulsion was to be very rarely exercised and only in the most exceptional cases. Well, we have brought into the Bill a form of compulsion which will, in our belief, cover those exceptional cases which the noble Earl desires to provide for. In our view it would have been a great injustice and entirely opposed to public policy to introduce broadcast over the whole of Ireland, whether in or out of the congested districts, this principle, which the noble Earl admires so much, of wholesale compulsion. May I say with regard to that question and to other so-called remedies which have been proposed by noble Lords opposite for the treatment of Ireland, that, in our view, these heroic remedies, these attempts at rapid transformation, are not so likely to conduce to the permanent welfare of the country as a much more deliberate and gradual amelioration of its condition.
Only one word more with regard to the position in which your Lordships' House has found itself with regard to this Bill. I think we have a right to remind the noble Earl that we found ourselves asked to put into shape a measure containing a more extraordinary collection of ill-thought-out and imperfectly-discussed proposals than I believe ever came before this House of Parliament. It was a Bill apparently based upon an attempt to include any proposal, no matter how wild, that was pressed upon His Majesty's Government by the Nationalist Party. Those proposals were accepted, were hurriedly thrown together and included in a Bill, and passed up to this House for revision, after, in many cases, the merest form of discussion in the other House of Parliament. We did our best to deal with a position which was

369
certainly not free from difficulty, and all I can say is that if the noble Earl believes that had we passed the Bill in the shape in which it came to us it would have been a final settlement of the land question in Ireland, he is very much mistaken. I believe, on the contrary, that it was a Bill replete with the germs of future difficulties, and that the Bill as it now stands is a better Bill for Irish purposes than the Bill as it came into this House. My Lords, I have ventured to complain somewhat of the noble Earl's criticism of the manner in which this important measure has been treated, but may I be permitted to say, before I resume my seat, that if I make that complaint I make no complaint whatever of the manner in which the noble Earl has himself conducted the Bill through this House. During these long discussions he has met us in a straightforward way and with the utmost courtesy, and it is with sincere regret that we on this side of the House find ourselves so widely differing from him upon the merits of the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to:
Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 205.)
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at half-pant nine.]

ASYLUM OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Queston, Motion agreed to
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
1. For the purposes of this Act the established officers and servants employed in asylums shall be divided into two classes. The first class shall consist of all those established officers and servants who have the care or charge of the patients in the usual course of their employment. The second class shall include all other established officers and servants.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said the three Amendments on the Paper which stood in his name to this clause were part of a series of Amendments he had been asked to submit to their Lordships in the name of the London County Council. He desired, of course, solely to consult the convenience of their Lordships, but he thought it would be probably more convenient that he should explain the purport of the Amendments now. He was sorry to notice that these Amendments ran very much counter to a scheme which was mostly contained in the Amendments of Lord Belper, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh being also interested in the same point. He was glad to think that there were one or two Amendments of his noble friends later on which he would be able to support on behalf of the London County Council, but he was afraid on this particular point there was a considerable gulf between them, arising from the peculiar situation of the London County Council in this matter owing to the extensiveness of the duties they had to perform. They had, as their Lordships were probably aware, ten asylums under their charge, which was a very much larger number, he fancied, than was the case with most, if not all, of the local authorities in the Kingdom. He was told that they were contemplating the addition of another asylum, and they supervised no fewer than 17,900 patients. As the result of such a very large system, they had, of course, a proportionately large staff, all of whom gave their whole time to this particular work. This Bill, if passed in its present form, would cut out from its benefits a very large number of officers in the asylum service. It would not only cut out future holders of these offices, but it was actually going to deprive of a pension a large number of officers who had now a perfectly definite expectation of one. It was owing to this fact that the London County Council supported the Bill as it was originally introduced in another place; he held in his hand a copy of a resolution which showed the attitude of two committees of the London County Council upon this subject in the direction he had just mentioned, and he should be pleased to show the resolution to any of their Lordships who desired to see it.
The difference of principle between the Bill and the desires of the London County Council was that whereas the Bill extended its obvious advantages to a very large number of officers in the asylum service, it did not extend those advantages to all

371
those officers, at any rate in the asylum service of the London County Council, and it was the desire of the London County Council that all those officers should share in its benefits. The theory on which the Bill seemed to proceed was that wherever there was danger from contact with lunatics the official should be given the advantages of this Bill, but that any official who was not actually submitted not only to danger but to constant danger should not be brought within the benefits of the Bill. That, of course, excluded the whole of the large clerical staff of the London County Council, or, at any rate, a very large part of it.
Perhaps he might be allowed to give some concrete cases which, he was advised, would not come within even the second class mentioned in Clause 2. First of all, however, he might say generally that all lunatics were, if he might use the phrase, potentially dangerous. One could never be certain when they were likely to prove dangerous, and in all asylums, he understood, there were selected lunatics working in the grounds and elsewhere who might at any time develop homicidal tendencies; and on two occasions recently, he was informed by officers of the London County Council, a lunatic working in the grounds of an asylum attacked another lunatic. In one case the attack was made with a pick-axe, the patient attacked being murdered. Obviously if there were danger to another lunatic there was equal danger to an officer of the Council coming in any way into contact with the lunatic, and it was the opinion, therefore, of the Council that that officer should not be denied the benefits of this Bill.
He had a large number of cases of officials who, he believed, would be excluded under the Bill as it now stood. First, he might mention that at the epileptic colony, where all the patients were specially selected as fit to work in the grounds, a patient recently felled a medical superintendent with a piece of iron-piping which he had concealed under his coat, and in this case there was very little doubt that the action was premeditated. He might quote the well-known case of the late Mr. Ermson, a Commissioner in Lunacy, very well known in connection with the subject of asylums, who was visiting Bexley Asylum in his official capacity and
372
returned to a ward to re-count the patients. A lunatic stabbed him in the throat with a large sharpened nail, which he admitted he had cunningly concealed about his person for some days, his intention being to kill one of the committee of the asylum. He mentioned this case to show that it was not only the persons who were in direct charge of lunatics who might be in positions of danger from the result of their contact with lunatics.
But he would now come actually to the officials of the London County Council. There was a clerk and a staff of clerical assistants who devoted the whole of their time to their administrative work. Their conditions were, he believed, quite different from those of officers having the care of lunatics under the jurisdiction at any rate of a great many other authorities. These officers frequently visited the asylums. Every week of the year there were several meetings in the various asylums, and thus the clerk and his assistants, in the course of their duties, were brought into contact with the patients. The clerk very often visited the wards on occasions of inquiry or statutory inspection, and therefore he ran exactly the same risks as members of the committee; he ran exactly the same risks as would be run in some of the cases he (Lord Donoughmore) had already quoted to their Lordships. Yet the clerk would be excluded from any of the benefits of the Bill—at least, he was advised that that was so if the Bill passed in its present form. The London County Council had a special engineer told off to the asylums. He was known as the asylums engineer, and he frequently had to visit asylums about heating, lighting, and so on, and his duties, therefore, brought him into a position which afforded constant opportunity for attack upon him if any lunatic were so minded. Yet he was advised that that engineer would not enjoy the benefits of this Bill. There was also a pathologist, undoubtedly a member of the asylums' staff, his duties being entirely confined to circumstances arising in the asylums; he, of course, had constantly to go into the asylums and all over them, but he was excluded from the benefits of this Bill. Therefore, he (Lord Donoughmore) claimed that the particular position of the London County Council made it absolutely necessary, if fairness was to be meted out to all its officials, that this Bill should be extended in the way that his three

373
Amendments to this clause asked their Lordships to extend it.
He wished to urge another point upon their Lordships. A great many officials who now looked forward to benefits such as would be given under this Bill under the present system would lose those benefits as the result of the passing of this Bill, and they would be therefore very unfairly treated unless some such Amendments as he was now moving were passed. He knew it was a matter of dispute as to whether all the officials of the London County Council were at present justified in claiming that they had these benefits; but he would say that in 1904 the London County Council took counsel's opinion on the point, and he would read two short extracts from that opinion. The first was—
"In our opinion all officers and servants appointed by the Asylums Committee, including the clerk of such Committee, are pensionable under the 280th Section of the Lunacy Act, 1890, and are exempt from liability to contribute to the Superannuation and Provident Fund of the Council. The fact that any such officer or servant is appointed in the central office, and not in connection with any particular asylum does not, in our opinion, prevent him from being so pensionable."
The next extract was—
"We do not think the engineer or his professional or clerical assistants can be compelled to contribute to the Council's scheme, and the same applies, in our opinion, to the pathologist and his professional and laboratory assistants. The reason is that all these officers and servants are in our opinion pensionable under Section 280 of the Lunacy Act, 1890."
That was the opinion of no less an authority than the present Secretary of State for War, and he did not think it was unreasonable that he (Lord Donoughmore) should claim that the Government should accept it; and in view of this opinion it was a very far-reaching action that the present Bill should wipe out all the expectations which the officials in question now undoubtedly enjoyed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the second 'the,' and in line 7 to leave out 'employed in asylums.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said he had no quarrel with the way in which his noble friend stated his case. His noble friend had truly stated that the great principle of this
374
Bill was as to whether there was danger or whether there was no danger; but then he went on to say that there was danger in the case of doctors in the asylum service, who, he said, would be excluded from the Bill as it now stood. He (Lord Monk Bretton) said they were not excluded from the Bill as it now stood, and that was the quarrel between them. The noble Earl made a great case of the hardships to which existing servants would be exposed, but Clause 13 permitted those servants to contract out so that they were left if they chose as they were before. What was the noble Earl's, case in reference to the epileptic? The words of the Bill were "employed in asylums." How could a man be knocked down by an iron pipe in an asylum unless he was employed in an asylum? Then the noble Earl made a point as to the clerical staff of the County Council. That was a very broad question. He said on the Second Reading that the great principle of this Bill was the question of whether or not there was danger. They gave these people preferential treatment because there was danger. If a clerk of a committee of the London County Council went into the asylum and was in contact with lunatics he would come within the provisions of the Bill, but if he did not do so then he was not treated differently from the clerk of any other committee of the London County Council. This was not a matter which affected the London County Council only but England, Scotland and Ireland; and why should a country solicitor who acted as asylums committee clerk and perhaps did not go to the asylum at all, or else went there under circumstances where he ran not the slightest risk or nerve strain of any sort, be in a different position from the clerk of the finance committee of a county council? On these grounds he hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment. Of course, if the noble Earl differed from him on a question of law, there were higher authorities in the House to decide that point; but as this Bill referred to officers employed in asylums he did not see how a man could be in danger or receive injury in the asylum without coming within the scope of the Bill.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill he said that while he thought the county councils were as a rule in hearty sympathy with the general

375
principles of the Bill, they were not prepared to admit that everyone who happened to be employed about the grounds of an asylum was a person entitled to a pension. There were many such persons whose occupations brought them very little into contact with the lunatics, and to say that persons who ran the same danger as those of their Lordships who had served on asylum committees were deserving of special consideration on account of the risks they ran was, he thought, absurd. He had served on a committee for a great many years, and it had never occurred to him that he was undergoing nerve strain or exposing himself to an enormous amount of danger such as would justify his having the same preferential consideration as other people in the asylums.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP)THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP) did not think the noble Earl's Amendment would have quite the effect the noble Earl thought. A large number of the people to whom the noble Earl referred were, he believed, already included in the Bill. To begin with, this Bill did not take away from those who were employed by the London County Council any right or any expectation they had at the present time. There was nothing in the Bill which could deprive them of any expectation they legally or morally enjoyed at the present time; but, on the other hand, he thought the Bill as it stood included a certain number of people whom the noble Lord below the Gangway did not appreciate were likely to come within the effects of the Bill. Some of their Lordships had probably had the same experience he had had himself of being on a visiting committee of a lunatic asylum. Certainly in country districts it was a very common thing for lunatic asylums to have a large farm, on which they had a large number of servants who were helped by lunatics. His own idea was that a dairyman in the employ of a lunatic asylum who was hurt by lunatics in the discharge of his duties, being generally assisted by lunatics, was a proper person to be superannuated under the scheme of this Bill. The idea of the noble Earl opposite, he thought, was that as the Bill stood it would not allow such a man to come under the scheme. There he joined issue with the noble Earl. He thought such a man came quite clearly under the definition of the Bill. On the other hand, certainly the members of a committee going round an asylum were not entitled to superannuation any more than the architect who went in to give an
376
occasional opinion. They did not and ought not to come under the Bill; but under the Bill as it stood he thought it was perfectly plain that any servant who was in contact with lunatics would come under the scheme of superannuation and that was really the idea that was in the mind of their Lordships. They all wished that whatever the immediate employment of these persons might be, if they were in constant contact with lunatics they should be able to enjoy the advantages of this Bill. He thought the noble Earl was really under an unnecessary fear that these people would be excluded, and under the circumstances he should like to join in the appeal to him not to press this Amendment.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said he would like to point out to the noble Earl who moved the Amendment that he appeared to propose to leave out the most important words in the Bill, "employed in asylums." Was the noble Earl going to leave out the title of the Bill? If he did not do so, it was not logical. With the words "employed in asylums" left out, the Bill might affect any one in a hospital or who had any dealing with any patient. There would be nothing to confine the Bill to asylums. If the noble Earl meant that, he ought to bring in a separate Bill for the London County Council.
What was the history of this Bill? The Bill was introduced in the other House by a gentleman who added to his other qualifications the honour of having been chairman of the London County Council. The whole case of the London County Council was fully placed before the Committee—the only part of the proceedings in the other House to which they were able to refer in any way, because the other proceedings were silent. After the case of the London County Council was heard in the Select Committee and the Bill had been through the other House with general consent, that gentleman now wanted to upset the whole Bill and make it suited for the London County Council, and for the London County Council alone, quite forgetting that if he was going to impose these stringent regulations in respect of other officers it would greatly widen the Bill and lead to very much larger expense. He hoped that if the noble Earl would not withdraw the Amendment it would not at all events be allowed to be added to the Bill.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he was afraid he had not got the same innocent faith in a Committee of the other House that the noble Lord seemed to have. It was quite true that this Bill was introduced by an ex-chairman of the London County Council and as introduced the Council actively supported it. With regard to the proposed omission of the words "employed in asylums," he thought the noble Lord answered that point himself when he said that he (Lord Donoughmore) did not propose to alter the title. That made it quite clear that the Bill referred to people in the asylum service.
LORD BELPER: It would not say so at all.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said the noble Lord would find the word "asylum" in a number of places in the Bill where he did not propose to move its omission, and he thought that would be enough to establish his case. Of course, he did not desire at the present stage to press this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, had met him perfectly fairly and frankly. He understood from the noble Earl that it was the desire of the Government that any one who, owing to his profession, was in danger should receive the benefits of the Bill, and that being so he did not desire to press the Amendment now, although he was sure their Lordships would allow him to retain his right and to see whether any Amendment safeguarding the London County Council could be introduced at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved an Amendment to substitute the word "direct" for the words "care or" in Clause 1. This, he said, was the first of several Amendments in his name, and perhaps he had better follow Lord Donoughmore's example and explain what he wished these Amendments to effect.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said he should be glad to accept the word "direct" if the noble Earl would leave in the words "care or."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN asked if this were a Government Bill. It was very difficult for their Lordships to know whether it was a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is obviously not a Government Bill, but a private Bill in which the Government may be permitted to take a benevolent interest.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER thought he had better continue his remarks, because he did not understand the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to say that he would accept the Amendment, although he hoped he would. What he desired by these Amendments was to confine the higher scale to those who had direct charge of the patients. He had always recognised that this Bill had received very warm support on many sides from the fact that the asylum service was not only very unpleasant in many respects, but it was also a dangerous service, and for that reason, although many of his friends would have liked to see the whole of the Bill made adoptive and not compulsory on every authority, he had not taken the course of moving any Amendment in that direction because he thought it would be an attack on the principle of the Bill. He recognised the principle of the Bill so far as the first clause went, but he wished to confine it to those who were in direct charge of the patients, and not to include the numerous class whom Lord Donoughmore referred to, and who would be only very occasionally in touch with the patients. Probably this was not the time to refer to further Amendments, but his object was that the second clause, dealing with the second class comprising the heterogeneous number of officers, labourers and servants, should be made adoptive—that was to say, every county council who wished to adopt it could do so, and those county councils who did not wish to adopt it should have the discretion of not adopting it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out 'care or,' and to insert 'direct.'"—(Lord Belper.)
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he quite recognised the position of the Government, who, although not directly responsible for the Bill, took a benevolent interest in it, and would like to further its object and purposes. He would prefer not to see the word "direct" inserted, because he thought that the words already in the Bill were sufficiently specific. Might they not introduce an element of uncertainty by the insertion of the word? Could not a man be in very immediate charge of patients,

379
although sometimes his work might be indirect? The supervision might be acute and active, and yet on some occasions might not be direct. He might have intermittent charge and intermittent control, sometimes direct and sometimes indirect. An element of doubt would certainly be introduced by the Amendment.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. He thought it might occasion cases of hardship. A case in point had been furnished by Lord Beauchamp. Sometimes a dairyman was in charge and sometimes he was not. The same was the case with the cook and the laundress. All these cases varied at different times in different asylums, and if the noble Lord tied them down as he proposed hardship might be inflicted. In regard to his Amendments to Clause 2, the noble Lord went to the other extreme, because he left the matter entirely to the local authorities. One of the principles of this Bill was uniformity, and that proposal of the noble Lord was contrary to the principle of uniformity. He was not sure whether the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment with regard to Clause 2 might not be quite different from what he had anticipated. Supposing it had the effect of making a generous local authority put everyone into class one and so increase the rates. That possibly would be open to objection. However that might be, he thought it would impose hardships amongst that class of officers whose places could not be very accurately defined.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved the insertion of a new subsection. He thought the Amendment explained itself. It left with the local authorities within the limits of the definition of this clause the actual decision as to who should be in class 1 and who in class 2.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 11, after 'servants,' to insert the following new subsection—
'(2) The division of established officers and servants into classes shall be made by the visiting committee of each asylum, with the consent of the local authority, and the visiting committee shall affix in a conspicuous place in the asylum, a notice with respect to such division into classes.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
2. Subject to the provisions of this Act—

(1) Any established officer or servant of the first class who has been in the service of an asylum for not less than fifteen years, and is not less than fifty years old, or who is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties after ten years' service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct, shall be entitled, on resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office or employment, to receive during life a superannuation allowance, the annual amount of which shall be computed at the rate of one-fiftieth of his salary or wages and emoluments for each completed year of service:

(2) Any established officer or servant of the second class who has been in the service of an asylum for not less than twenty years and is not less than sixty years old, or who is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties after ten years' service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct, shall be entitled, on resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office or employment, to receive during life a superannuation allowance the annual amount of which shall be computed at the rate of one-sixtieth of his salary or wages and emoluments for each completed year of service:

(3) The managers or authorities of any asylum may, in computing the amount of superannuation allowance to any established officer or servant, take into account any peculiar professional qualifications or services or special circumstances entitling to consideration and, with the consent of the Secretary of State, add a number of years not exceeding ten to the number of years which the officer or servant has actually served in the aggregate:

Provided that a superannuation allowance shall not in any case exceed two-thirds of the salary or wages and emoluments of the superannuated person.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said that before their Lordships proceeded to consider this clause he would like to address a question to the Government with regard to its general meaning. When the noble Earl the Lord Steward just now said he would accept an Amendment he seemed to be taking rather more than the benevolent interest which the Lord Chancellor told their Lordships the Government had in the Bill. He really thought the noble Earl was quite right, and he greatly regretted that the Bill was not a Government Bill, because it was going to impose a very large charge on the rates and establish a system of superannuation. Of course, they could not establish a system of superannuation with regard to any particular class of public servants without reference to other classes of public servants, and there were, of course, general rules and general principles with regard to

381
superannuation which really could only be administered properly and considered properly by the Government, because the Government had the whole question of superannuation under its direct supervision and control. For instance, he saw by the Bill that the superannuation allowance was to be computed at the rate of one-fiftieth of the salary and emoluments for each completed year of service. In the Civil Service, as they knew, it was one-sixtieth. Although he had a great deal of confidence in his noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, at the same time when they were establishing a scale of superannuation he questioned whether his noble friend had at his disposal, and a sufficient acquaintance with, the general principles and general rules and practice of superannuation to enable him to be a great authority on the subject. The Government, of course, were in quite a different position, and he presumed that a Bill of this sort, imposing as it would a direct charge on the rates, must come under their careful supervision and watchful eye; and what he wanted to ask the noble Earl was whether the Government had examined the whole principles of superannuation upon which the Bill was based. Had they, for instance, considered the scale of salaries, because by adding to the existing scale of salaries a right to superannuation was equivalent to a very large increase of salary. Take, for instance, the superior officers in asylums who had large salaries; their superannuation would be proportionately large, and it was more in regard to them than with regard to labourers and the smaller persons that really this increase would be felt. Therefore, what he wished to ask the Government was whether the Home Office had thoroughly considered the pecuniary results of the Bill and the principles upon which it was based, and did the Treasury approve of it, because rumours had got about—they were very general and might have no solid basis—that there was something not quite correct about the pecuniary foundation of this Bill, and that the Government themselves were not altogether satisfied with it in its present form. He would be much obliged to the noble Earl if he could tell him what part of the scheme the Government approved of and whether they approved of it in its present form.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that after the recent rebuke of the noble Earl he rose with
382
some diffidence to reply to him. The noble Earl had said the Government had assumed too much responsibility.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not say so at all. On the contrary, I wish His Majesty's Government would assume the sole responsibility.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said that undoubtedly the noble Earl objected to his early intervention on behalf of the Government when the noble Lord opposite moved an Amendment. He could only tell the noble Earl that the position of the Government with regard to this Bill was exactly what it would be with regard to any Bill introduced by a private member in either House of Parliament. It was quite impossible to suppose that His Majesty's Government could accept responsibility for every word and every detail of every clause in the Bill as it appeared before their Lordships at this moment. He did not suppose any one except the draftsmen ever thought any Bill perfect and incapable of improvement. The Home Office and the Treasury had examined the principle of this Bill, and, as their Lordships heard on the Second Reading, the Government approved the principle, which was to give superannuation to asylum officers. Towards that principle His Majesty's Government adopted a very benevolent attitude. Then the noble Earl asked whether the Government approved of the Bill exactly as it stood to-day. He would ask the noble Earl to what Bill he referred. Did he refer to the Bill before their Lordships at this moment or to the Bill in the shape that it would assume after it had been through Committee of their Lordships' House and after various Amendments they hoped to insert in the course of the discussion had been accepted? It seemed to him quite impossible for the Government to approve of the Bill on the Table now, and also to approve of the Bill after it had been amended in their Lordships' House. The position was inconsistent. But what he could say was that not only did His Majesty's Government approve of the principle but they also believed and hoped that when the Bill had undergone amendment, it would be a Bill to which every one of their Lordships could give an unqualified approval.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN was afraid the noble Earl did not apprehend the

383
question he had put to him. He asked the noble Earl whether the Government approved of the financial arrangements of the Bill as it now stood. He (Lord Camperdown) did not know what their Lordships' House would do, but he presumed that the Government, taking as they did a benevolent interest in the Bill, had looked into the financial arrangements, and he wanted to know whether they approved of the scale of superannuation proposed in the Bill. That was his question.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said the question of the scale came under the consideration of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and he believed the scale was founded on the Lunacy Act of 1890; the proportion there was one-fiftieth, and that was without contribution, whereas this was with contribution. So far as he knew, the Report of the Select Committee was unanimous on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend Lord Camperdown raised one point which seems to me of considerable importance, namely, whether in connection with this question of pensions the question of salaries has also been considered. This Bill, I understand, will render pensionable a number of officers who at present are not pensionable. I had always been led to believe that a pension was a form of deferred salary, and therefore it does seem to follow that if these persons are to be pensionable hereafter, the whole question of their salary would naturally come under review; and I think the question of my noble friend was whether there had been such a review of the salaries of these officers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the best course would be this. We have not a Treasury officer here, and although I am myself officially interested in the subject-matter, I am not concerned in any part of the financial considerations. The question having been asked, we will certainly inquire of the Treasury, and at a later stage of this Bill we will give the direct answer which the noble Marquess desires. If the House will exercise its own judgment with regard to this scale of pensions we will certainly inquire of the Treasury what they think of the subject and communicate with the House at the next stage.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved an Amendment substituting twenty for fifteen years as
384
the qualifying period of service, and fifty-five instead of fifty as the age when an officer should be entitled to claim superannuation allowance. He hoped it would not be thought that he in any way posed as an authority with regard to what was the proper scale. If they got some authoritative statement from the Treasury as to what was a reasonable scale he would willingly withdraw his Amendments. But he could not conceal from himself that if the scale as it stood in the Bill was not a reasonable one it would cause a very serious charge indeed upon the rates. Unless he was more successful in a future Amendment than he was in the last, this Bill would create an enormous number of pensionable people whom many believed it was not at all necessary to pension, and whose pensions would form a very dangerous precedent with regard to other county council officers.
There was a very strong feeling indeed amongst county councils that at all events so far as officers like clerks and others who were not directly in charge of patients were concerned, a discretion should be given to county councils as to whether they should give them pensions or not. When the county councils were first established, many of them passed a resolution against giving pensions to their servants. They gave their servants adequate and even liberal salaries, and told them it would be their business to make what provision they could out of their salaries for their old age, and it seemed to him that it would be a very unfair and dangerous thing to lay down by a Bill of this sort a principle which might have to be adopted afterwards with regard to all sorts of officials of county councils, because there would be no distinction between some of the officers who would be made pensioners under this Bill and others who would be serving county councils in other similar offices, but did not receive pensions. In those circumstances he felt bound to make some inquiries with regard to the figures in this Bill, and certainly to raise the question. He did not pretend to be an authority on this matter, but he raised the question so that those of their Lordships who were conversant with such matters could deal with the Amendments as they came up.
His first Amendment was that the service should be twenty years and not fifteen. Fifteen seemed to him a very short service

385
to entitle one to a pension, especially when they were dealing with oases of officers who were permanently incapacitated. Then he proposed that instead of the age of fifty at which they should be entitled to retire, it should be fifty-five. He had made some inquiries with regard to this matter, and was informed by gentlemen who had some knowledge of these points that it would be very fair to leave a discretion as to the age from fifty to sixty—that was to say, to allow the authorities a discretion as to giving the pension at fifty, fifty-five or sixty. He believed there were very strong objections to leaving a discretion in this matter, particularly in a Bill which aimed at uniformity, and it might be that an officer received a pension at fifty in one asylum while another would not receive it till fifty-five or sixty. He did not wish to raise any difficulty of that sort, and therefore he had taken what he considered a moderate figure—namely, a mean between fifty and sixty, which, he thought, would be some relief to the fund which would have to be provided for these officers, and would be on the whole a fair compromise. They had in the Police Act a good example as to the effect of pensions of this sort. That Act was year by year becoming a larger and more serious charge on the counties. The amount of money county councils had to pay out of the rates to meet the charges of the police pensions in some counties was as much as £4,000 and in one instance even £4,700, while in a great many others it was over £1,000. The average of the counties he took—they were not all large and some were small—was £2,000 a year. That was a serious matter, and not only that, but towards the expenses of the police a very large sum was paid by the Treasury—£300,000 a year, he believed, out of which every county council got a proportion. Under this Bill, however, the county councils would get no contribution at all from the Treasury, although the charge was likely to be a large one.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 15, to leave out 'fifteen' and to insert 'twenty,' and to leave out 'fifty,' and insert 'fifty-five.'"—(Lord Belper.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY did not know what line the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was going to take with regard to this Amendment, but he earnestly hoped he would not assent to it too readily, and that, in fact, he would
386
oppose it. He hoped it would not be forgotten that in this matter they were dealing very largely with women. It was one thing to say that a policeman might go on, but it was quite another thing to say that a woman having the extra ordinarily difficult and trying charge of lunatics was to go on till fifty-five years of age before she was entitled voluntarily to retire on a pension. The point was one which ought not to be overlooked, and he deprecated anything which would have the effect of discouraging asylum workers from remaining in the public service and tempting them to transfer their services to private service. He had ventured on the Second Reading to remind their Lordships that whereas police and Poor Law officers could not find something akin to what they were doing which could tempt them else where by a slight increase of salary, there was a large number of private institutions to which the asylum officer might go. The last thing which it should be their desire to do was to discourage asylum officers, and, above all, the women, who might be tempted to find a place where they would receive a little more and leave the public institutions to perhaps an inferior grade of officer. Therefore, he hoped their Lordships would err on the side of generosity and not niggardliness with regard to the number of years service and age.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he agreed with everything the most rev. Primate had said. There was nothing novel about this Bill. It had been thrashed out by a Select Committee and legislation of the kind had more than once been proposed. His noble friend speaking on behalf of local authorities, forgot to say that of the county councils of England four-fifths were in favour of the Bill.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER begged the noble and learned Lord's pardon. They had not got any figures at all from half the county councils, and therefore it was not quite fair to say that four-fifths of the county councils in England were in favour of the Bill.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said he remembered his noble friend's statement perfectly well. His noble friend was the chairman of the County Councils Association, and no one spoke with greater authority or was heard with greater respect on the question. What his noble friend said was that the circular was issued to every county council in

387
England. Therefore, every county council in England had an opportunity of expressing its opinion.
LORD BELPER: Many of them have not met since.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said it was reasonable to suppose that if the county councils had any feeling against this Bill they would have made themselves distinctly heard. Could there be any analogy between the procedure in this Bill and the relief given under the Police Acts? There was no kind of analogy. The services were widely different. No one who knew the police and who knew what they had to undergo grudged them any liberal treatment they might receive, but those who had been in asylums—and it had been his lot to visit many, for he had always taken a deep interest in the work—would recognise the importance of the work and the enormous mental strain on the men and women there; it was a strain on their nerves, on their strength, and on their powers of endurance. There was everything that entitled them to sympathy. Therefore he thought this a necessary Bill to give fair play to a very important class. The object of the Bill was to try and work out a uniform scale of justice. If they gave a discretion as to the class in which the officials were placed they would run the risk of different methods of treatment being dealt out. There were fair and reasonable, and, if they liked, generous public bodies. He did not wish to say that any public body approached questions in a mean, niggardly, and ungenerous spirit. Other people might say those things, but he did not; but it was desirable, in trying to work out a system of retirement, to have a method of payment in the way of pension that would be compulsory, that would ensure fair play all round, and that would prevent unjust and unfair discrimination. That was the principle in this Bill.
His noble friend suggested an Amendment that the period of service should be changed from fifteen to twenty years, and the age from fifty to fifty-five as the scale for the higher class of officials. He did not think the figures named in the Bill were unreasonable. They were dealing now with the class who were in direct contact, and who had the greatest strain on their nerves, on their strength, and on their powers of endurance, and if they wanted to do that class justice they must name a
388
comparatively moderate number of years service. Was not fifteen years a very substantial time for people to be asked to undergo work in a lunatic asylum, with all its painful surroundings, great trials, and sometimes grave danger? His noble friend sought to change the period of service to twenty years. It was a question of degree. He himself agreed with the most rev. Primate. He would prefer seeing fifteen years to twenty years. He was even more strongly opposed to the age being raised from fifty to fifty-five years. Wear and strain aged people. They could not subject a person to a very hard and trying series of conditions such as obtained in lunatic asylums without imposing a great strain on the vital powers. He agreed with what the most rev. Primate had said about the female officers in asylums, and although his opinions were stronger on the subject of age than on the number of years service he was unable to bring himself to believe that the proposals in his noble friend's Amendment would be an improvement to the Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND could not help thinking it would be a good thing if their Lordships discussed this question in a rather more businesslike spirit. The noble and learned Lord who had just spoken had made an eloquent appeal on behalf of fixed pensions—pensions that should be given by all local bodies. He thought they were all agreed about that. He understood the Bill was based upon the supposition that there was to be a fixed scale. The noble and learned Lord had told them that the county councils would have been up in arms at once if they had objected to the Bill, and that their Lordships would have heard about it. He could assure the noble and learned Lord that although no doubt he knew Ireland perfectly well he knew nothing about county councils in England if he thought they would do any such thing. County councils in England never moved except at their regular meetings and at the instance of certain committees which had these matters in their charge. The committees reported to the county councils, and the councils came to a decision. Generally, it was true, they took the opinion of the committee; but there had been no opportunity for the county councils to give their opinion on this Bill. It would require a very much more drastic and serious matter to stir up the county councils to have special meetings and to communicate with the central association.
It appeared to him that they had heard a great deal of philanthropic talk. The most rev. Primate had told them that these were most deserving cases, and especially the cases of women. The corollary to that speech which suggested itself to him was that the most rev. Primate should make provision for a separate class, if necessary, so as to pension women at an earlier age than men. But what they wanted to know, and what he felt in the dark about, was what was the charge going to be upon the rates. That was a question no one could answer. Here was a Bill that the Government had under their protection, and yet they had no conception of what it would put upon the rates. This just showed the great importance which the rates had in the eyes of His Majesty's Government! They did not care a brass farthing so long as they got a little popularity. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill could tell them nothing except that a Committee of the House of Commons had thrashed the matter out. He had no information about the Committee of the other House. It might have been a Committee thoroughly qualified to go into the financial circumstances; but they had no knowledge of that. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment had himself told them he did not know whether this was right or wrong. The Government told them that they would make inquiries. They had fathered the Bill, so to speak, without knowing anything of the financial position, but they would make inquiries and would tell the House. What on earth were their Lordships going to do now? How were they to deal with these Amendments? Would the noble Lord who moved the Amendment tell him on what basis he was to form his opinion? He did not know whether the Amendment would bring within due limits the increase in the rates which would be imposed on local authorities by the Bill.
There was one thing they seemed to forget when they talked about the great necessity for pensions. All local authorities when they fixed the salaries of their employés, just like everybody else, took into consideration the question whether those employés could look for a pension or not. It was all very well to say these officials would have no pensions. No, they would have no pensions, but presumably they had in consequence higher salaries than they otherwise would have. It might be right to make a hard-and-fast rule that
390
certain classes in lunatic asylums should be entitled to pensions, but before they could decide upon the scale of those pensions and the age at which they should be received they should have some idea of what the cost was going to be. All the speeches about the great desirability of considering those who were exposed to danger and so forth seemed to him to be beside the mark. First of all, they wanted to know what they were going to impose upon the local authorities, and, until he knew that, he for his part did not feel inclined to vote for any Amendment at all. He suggested that they had better postpone the Amendments until the Government were able to give them some information on the point.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said he did not know what information the noble Duke had upon the subject of the opinion of the county councils which was not at his (Lord Clifford's) command; but when he spoke of the majority of the county councils being in favour of the Bill he distinctly said that that approval was not to be taken as an approval of the scale or an approval of the right to pensions of any except those who were in direct care and control of the patients. They might be in favour of the scale and of everything in the Bill, but he did not take it, so far as any information he had went, that that was the amount of their consent. When they were shown a Bill and were asked if they were in favour of it, if they were in favour of the general principles they said they were in favour of the Bill. There might be many details they did not accept. Therefore, to say that the county councils or the majority of them were in favour of the Bill absolutely as it stood and of everything in it appeared to be an unwarranted assertion. The most rev. Primate had said that this was a matter which chiefly concerned women. He did not know what experience the most rev. Primate had had of that.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I said "largely women."
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said his experience was that it did not affect women chiefly, because although the majority of asylum attendants might be women, few of them, compared with the men, stayed on long enough to get a

391
pension, either under the scale as it was in the Bill or under the scale as proposed by the Amendment. Therefore, it was hardly true to say that this Bill would affect the women attendants rather than the men. Another argument in favour of having the age at fifty-five instead of fifty was that by Clause 9, fifty-five was the age in the Bill at which the committee was empowered to place an attendant on compulsory pension; and it would be more uniform if the two ages, the age at which the servant could demand a pension and the age at which the committee could oblige him to take one, were the same.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said it had been objected that the county councils had had no opportunity of stating their views because they had not met for their quarterly meetings. In the case of his own county council the circular, was issued before the last quarterly meeting, and the county council did reply. The noble Duke had told him that he ought to say what was going to be the effect of this Bill on the rates. He did not think any one, however clever, could say that, because it must be a matter of speculation to a certain extent. That was the case with the Police Act and with the Poor Law Act, and it must be exactly the same in regard to this Bill. They could not tell exactly what the effect would be on the rates, but they could say that whereas in the Police Act a man got his pension on the basis of the salary he was receiving at the date of his retirement, under this Bill there was a ten years basis and that made it cheaper for the rates. His position as being in charge of the Bill was a singular one. The benevolent interest of the Government might be a sort of suspended judgment. He was not quite sure whether their friendship was much more than a name. He had to accept an Amendment or not, and to hope that the Government would agree and would not condemn the Bill afterwards. In the circumstances he was going to strain the matter as far as he possibly could, and to say, on behalf of the promoters, that they would accept both these Amendments, but on the distinct understanding that nothing else was added in reference to the scale. If there was any further question of changing the scale the Bill would be wrecked. The great authorities of London and of Liverpool, which represented a very large proportion of the asylum services of the United
392
Kingdom, gave terms at the present time very much more favourable than the terms under this Bill. If the terms in the Bill were made less favourable than set out in these Amendments, then the asylum officers in those asylums would prefer to receive the better scale than the compulsory scale which would then be proposed under the Bill. It was on the express understanding stated that he accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP was sure everybody in the House would recognise the willingness of the noble Lord to meet the criticisms which had been devoted to this portion of the Bill. A good deal in the debate had carried him (Earl Beauchamp) on to somewhat unfamiliar ground, but that was not the case in regard to the denunciations which the noble Duke had poured upon His Majesty's Government. Then he realised that they were in the same House of Lords as that to which they had been accustomed during the past few weeks. There was something a good deal reminiscent of other discussions on other Bills in what the noble Duke had said on the subject of His Majesty's Government. There was this, however, to be said, that the denunciations were quite impartially poured. They were poured not only upon His Majesty's Government, but also on some of those who sat on the same benches as the noble Duke himself. With regard to the questions which the noble Duke had put to the Government, it was difficult to say exactly what was the meaning attached to such words as "due limits." The noble Duke asked whether the Amendments would bring the expenditure upon the rates within "due limits." It was not unlikely that the noble Duke and himself would differ upon the subject as to what they thought "due limits."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: What the Government think "due limits."
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said it was even more likely that the majority of the Government would differ from the noble Duke as to what were "due limits" in this matter. He could only say that it was quite impossible for the Treasury to give an estimate of what the cost to the rates would be. The cost to the rates would be different in every county throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. There

393
were counties which had a great many asylums, in which the cost would be a great deal more than in the more fortunate places where there was only a single asylum. Therefore it was quite impossible to offer to their Lordships any figures which would be immediately reliable. He thought the course of the discussion showed the wisdom of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in accepting the Amendment, because even amongst his own supporters there, were differences of opinion. In regard to the most rev. Primate, it was noticeable that while he thought the Amendment might go rather far with regard to women he did not say He thought it went too far with regard to men. However that might be, he ventured to think that after what had fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill their Lordships would accept the Amendment without further discussion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved an Amendment providing that an officer of the first class should be entitled to the superannuation allowance during life "or incapacity." The object of inserting the words was, he explained, to prevent anybody who had been apparently permanently incapacitated but who might, contrary to expectation, recover, getting his pension for life, when he might be fully capable of returning to his duties.
Amendment moved—
"In line 21, after 'life,' to insert 'or incapacity.'"—(Lord Belper.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON intimated that he would accept the Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill accepted the Amendment he did not want to offer any opposition. But surely this was rather hastily accepted. He could quite understand a man being given a pension for life if compelled to retire, but if they went on to say "during incapacity" what did they mean? A man might have gone away in broken health and might make a recovery sufficient to enable it to be said that he was no longer suffering from incapacity; but would it do any good for a man then to have his pension stopped? If a medical certificate were produced saying he was no longer
394
incapacitated, were they to take him back into the asylum at the old salary?
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said those questions were answered in the Amendment. The Amendment was taken from the Police Act, and was thought to be a very necessary provision for dealing with the cases in question.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER then moved an Amendment for the purpose of making the subsection relating to officers of the second class adoptive. He explained that if this and other Amendments were agreed to the clause would read, "The managers and authorities of any asylum may, if they think fit, decide that any established officer or servant of the second class is eligible for a pension, and in that case, when he has been in the service of an asylum for not less than twenty-five years and is not less than fifty-five years old, or is permanently incapacitated from asylum duties after ten years service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct," etc. In the Amendment he wished to deal with the cases of clerks, accountants, and others employed in an asylum who were not brought to any great degree into contact with lunatics. It seemed to him that if they were to have imported into the Bill cases like the clerk who was responsible to the asylum committee for keeping their books or of accountants or other officials of that sort, it would be a precedent which it would be almost impossible to resist if they were asked for pensions in the cases of officers of other committees of county councils. He believed this particular case was met in another way by an Amendment which would be moved at a later stage by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, whose Amendment might possibly be almost as effective as his own. The only difference would be that his Amendment would give to an asylum authority who did not wish to put anybody into the second class the power of saying they would not do so, while Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendment gave discretion as to what officers they should put into the second class. He would be willing to meet the Committee in regard to these Amendments if Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendments were accepted. But in the meanwhile he would move his first Amendment because he was representing

395
county councils who were very anxious not to have this obligation put upon them of giving pensions to a large number of the officers to whom he had referred.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 4, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert 'The managers and authorities of any asylum may, if they think fit, decide that.'"—(Lord Belper.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON was very disappointed to hear the noble Lord argue his Amendment, because he thought he had agreed to its withdrawal. He did not like the Amendment, as it destroyed the principle of uniformity, which was one of the main objects of the Bill. As he had pointed out, if they eliminated the second class they very likely drove a larger number into class one, and therefore increased the rates. He certainly preferred the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh to that which had just been moved.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH hoped the noble Lord would adhere to his Amendment, because it seemed to him to be a safeguard against the ratepayers being unduly oppressed in this matter of very serious expenditure. It also afforded an opportunity for dealing with special cases which deserved treatment although they did not come under the general rule. He thought that in this Bill they could not lay too great stress upon the importance of considering the increasing liabilities of the unfortunate ratepayer, whom nobody seemed to care about at the present day and upon whom all sorts of burdens were put, merely for popularity. It was desirable that this, among other, safeguards should be inserted. Mention had been made of an Amendment to be moved subsequently which possibly might amount to much the same thing. He hoped that whether Lord Belper's Amendment was pressed or not, that of Lord Clifford would be adopted, and the principle adhered to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE supported the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. If the Amendment were adopted in its present form it might put officers in the second class in the position that they might have to contribute but would not have the ultimate certainty of the benefit. He was sure the noble Lord did not desire that.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER said if that was not clear he would be perfectly ready to make it clear.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved an Amendment at the commencement of the third subsection, to substitute "visiting committee" for "managers or authorities." He said that "managers or authorities" was a vague term, and would hardly do for the purposes of the Bill. Their Lordships who had had experience in local government would, he thought, say that the visiting committee was the proper authority to deal with this matter. Alterations would be put in with regard to Scotland and Ireland so as to make the equivalent to the visiting committee in England the authority in Scotland and Ireland.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 17, to leave out 'managers or authorities,' and to insert 'visiting committee.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved a new subsection which, he said, was intended to meet the case where officers not being entitled to a pension received some serious injury in the actual discharge of their duty which would entitle them to some consideration, either by way of gratuity or pension according to the nature of the injury they received.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 25, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection—
'(4) Where an established officer or servant of an asylum is injured—(a) in the actual discharge of his duty; and (b) without his own default; and (c) by some injury specifically attributable to the nature of his duty; and is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties as the result of such injury, the visiting committee of such asylum may grant to him such gratuity or special superannuation allowance as they may consider reasonable.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON accepted the Amendment on behalf of the promoters.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved a new clause, the object of which was, he said, to continue the discretionary power which the asylums committees now had under the Lunacy Act of 1890. This was in the Bill as it passed the Select Committee in another place, and the London County Council felt that the omission of such power—their Lordships would grant it was a power—would occasion great hardship, as without it no officer could be pensioned although he had served for at least ten years in some cases. It was quite true there might be some relief under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but that would not apply to all the cases that might arise. The medical superintendents and most of the assistant medical officers and other high officials would be excluded from adequate provision in the event of disablement due, for instance, to the attack of a patient. He was advised that there had been many such cases, and owing to the fact that high officials did run serious risks the London County Council felt very strongly that it was desirable that this power should be continued.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause—
'In the event of any established officer or servant being permanently incapacitated for asylum duties by reason of injury or illness (bodily or mental), medically certified and clearly attributable to the duties of his employment, the managers or authority of the asylum may grant him such superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his salary or wages and emoluments as under the circumstances may appear fitting independently of length of service.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND pointed out that the Amendment went back on the Bill. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendment said that where an established officer or servant of an asylum was injured certain things should happen, and the present Amendment repeated "in the event of any established officer or servant being permanently incapacitated for asylum duties by reason of injury."
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE pointed out that there were the words "permanently incapacitated."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND asked whether both Amendments should be inserted in the Bill.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said it was a matter of a different scale. In the
398
case of his Amendment the officer must be permanently incapacitated. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's Amendment dealt with the case of injury. His (Lord Donoughmore's) Amendment went a great deal further, and enabled a higher scale to be given, because it said that the managers or authorities might grant such superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the salary.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH said his Amendment would cover the case of an officer permanently incapacitated. The only difference was that Lord Donoughmore's Amendment laid down a certain scale, whilst his own Amendment merely said that the allowance should be such as appeared reasonable.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES said that the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, as altered, was not on the Paper, and therefore it was a little difficult for noble Lords to see what was its exact effect. The most convenient course for Lord Donoughmore would be to withdraw his Amendment now, and for consideration to be given to the matter before Report.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he would not press the matter now, and would withdraw his Amendment without prejudice to any further action.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 2, to insert the following new clause—
'3.—(1) Where a superannuation allowance is granted to an established officer or servant on the ground of incapacity for the performance of his duty the managers or authority of the asylum shall yearly or otherwise, until the power under this Act of requiring such officer or servant to serve again ceases, satisfy themselves that the incapacity continues, and unless they resolve that such evidence is unnecessary, shall satisfy themselves by the evidence of a legally qualified medical practitioner selected by the managers or authority.
(2) In the event of the incapacity ceasing before the time at which the officer or servant would if he had continued to serve have been entitled without a medical certificate to retire and receive a superannuation allowance for lift, the managers or authority of the asylum may cancel his superannuation and require him to serve again in the asylum at a rate of pay and emoluments (if any) not less than the rate which he received before his retirement.
(3) Where an established officer or servant so serves again the provisions of this Act as to

399
retirement and superannuation allowances and gratuities shall apply as if he had not previously retired, save that the time which elapsed between his former retirement and the commencement of his service again shall not be reckoned as service.'"—(Lord Belper.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
3. An established officer or servant who ceases to hold office in consequence of any offence of a fraudulent character or of grave misconduct shall forfeit all claim to any superannuation allowance under this Act in respect of his previous service, provided that the asylum managers or authority may in special cases, if they see fit, return a sum equal to the amount of all or part of his aggregate contributions under this Act.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved to leave out the words "asylum managers or authority "and to substitute the words" visiting committee of the asylum in which he was last employed."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, lines 33 and 34, to leave out 'asylum managers or authority,' and to insert 'visiting committee of the asylum in which he was last employed.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
4. 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.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved an Amendment providing that no service not continuous for at least two years should be reckoned as services for the purpose of the Act. He had been told that it might lead to very great inconvenience if there was encouragement, as there would be in some cases, for an officer constantly to change his service. It was very undesirable, in the interests of the asylums themselves, that that should frequently be done.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 40, after 'asylums,' to insert 'Provided that no service which is not continuous for at least two years shall be so reckoned.'"—(Lord Belper.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
5. When a person in receipt of superannuation allowance under this Act is appointed to any office or employment by any authority to which this Act applies, such allowance shall cease to be paid so long as he continues to hold such office or employment if the salary or wages and emoluments thereof are equal to or in excess of such allowance; if they are not, then only so much of such allowance shall be paid so long as he holds such employment as will make up the deficiency.
Any such person on ceasing to hold such office or employment shall be entitled to revert to and receive the full amount of his original superannuation allowance from the authority which granted it.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to add at the end of the clause the words in his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'it,' to insert the words 'If an established officer or servant in receipt of superannuation allowance under this Act is appointed to an office or employment remunerated out of money provided by Parliament, or out of a county or borough rate or fund, or out of any parochial district or other rate, he shall not while holding that office or employment receive more of the superannuation than, together with the remuneration of that office or employment, is equal to the remuneration of the office or employment in respect of which the superannuation was awarded.'"—(Lord Belper.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
6.—(1) An established officer or servant who has not become entitled to a superannuation allowance, and who loses his office or employment by reason of reduction of staff, or of any other cause whatever other than his own misconduct or voluntary resignation, shall be entitled to receive the aggregate amount of his contributions under this Act.
(2) An asylum authority may, if they think fit, repay to any female officer or servant leaving to be married after not less than five years' service, the amount of her contributions under this Act, provided that within three months after leaving she produces to the asylum authority her marriage certificate.
(3) If an officer or servant claims under this section and subsequently obtains a fresh office or employment, he shall not be entitled to reckon his service before obtaining such fresh office or employment towards a superannuation allowance under this Act, unless, upon obtaining such fresh office or employment, he pays the amount received under this section to the managers or authority under whom he obtains such fresh office or employment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to substitute "three years" for "five years" in subsection (2). He said the London County Council were of opinion that the proposal in the Bill would inflict a hardship upon very many of their employés, a large number leaving under five years. It was obviously unfair that a woman should subscribe to a fund for four years and then lose all benefit. The London County Council felt that three years would be a fair and sufficient time.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 21, to leave out 'five,' and to insert 'three.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
10. It shall be competent for the asylum managers or authority to grant at their discretion, and on such terms as they think fit, a gratuity to the widow or children of an established officer or servant dying while in the service of the asylum who if he had retired at the time of his death would have been entitled to a superannuation allowance, but such gratuity shall not exceed his total contributions, or one year's salary or wages and emoluments.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved an Amendment making the granting of gratuities to dependants of an officer in case of death subject to the consent of the local authority. Under the Lunacy Act every pension or gratuity was subject to the consent of the local authority, and he thought it advisable also under this Bill with regard to gratuities and payments which were not in the scale of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 32, after 'authority,' to insert 'with the consent of the local authority.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON said the Amendment was a very reasonable one, this being a permissive clause, and on behalf of the promoters he was quite prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
12. In this Act, if not inconsistent with the context, "asylum" means (1) an asylum for lunatics provided by a county or borough, or by a union of counties or boroughs; (2) a Metropolitan Asylums Board asylum for imbeciles; and (3) district and parochial asylums in Scotland; and (4) district asylums in Ireland. "Established officer or servant "means such officer or servant as the local authority shall by resolution determine to be engaged in the work or administration of the asylum, and the division of such established officers and servants into two classes as provided by clause one shall be made by the managers or authorities of the asylum.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved the omission of the words "district and parochial asylums in Scotland, and district asylums in Ireland."
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 11, to leave out 'district and parochial asylums in Scotland, and district': and in line 12, to leave out 'asylums in Ireland.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the first class should be that which was laid clown in Clause 1, and that the second class should be as set out in this clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 13, to leave out 'as,' and to insert 'as have the care or charge of the patients or whom.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 14, to leave out from 'be' to 'and' in line 15, and to insert 'an established officer or servant.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to omit from the clause the words contained in his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, lines 14 and 15, to leave out 'engaged in the work or administration of the asylum.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved to further amend the clause by omitting the words "and the division of such established officers and servants into two classes as provided by Clause 1 shall be made by the managers or authorities of the asylum," in order to insert the words in his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In line 15, to leave out from 'asylum' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'Local authority means the local authority by which an asylum is provided, or in the case of an asylum provided by two or more local authorities, those local authorities, and in the case of an asylum provided by the Lancashire Asylums Board, that Board.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE asked whether this fitted in with the last Amendment having regard to the words "local authority."
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON pointed out that where several local authorities were joint authorities in an asylum there must be some difficulty under the clause if the various authorities should happen to clash.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON moved to add a new subsection.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the words:
'(2) In the case of an asylum provided or maintained by the Lancashire Asylums Board, for references in this Act to the visiting committee of an asylum there shall be substituted references to that Board, or a visiting committee appointed by that Board, as the case may be.'"—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
14. Every superannuation allowance or gratuity under this Act shall be paid by the managers or authorities of the asylum in which the officer or servant to whom, or to whose widow or children, the superannuation allowance or gratuity is payable was employed at the time of his superannuation or death, out of the fund out of which the salaries or wages of officers and servants in that asylum are payable.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER stated that under this Bill the authority to find the money for the pensions was changed from the county council to the board of guardians, and the first part of the Amendment was absolutely necessary to the machinery for carrying it out. The second part provided that the charge should be divided between the different asylums where the officer had served.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 1, to leave out from 'death' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'and the weekly sum fixed by the visiting committee under section two hundred and eighty-three of the Lunacy Act, 1890, shall be of such amount that the total of such weekly sums shall be sufficient to pay all such superannuation allowances or gratuities in addition to the expenses of maintenance and salaries payable out of such sums under that section.
'Provided that where an established officer or servant of an asylum has removed to some other asylum under such circumstances as entitle him to aggregate his services in such first mentioned asylum with his services in such last mentioned asylum and in due course becomes entitled to and is awarded a superannuation allowance, the visiting committee in whose service he then is shall be entitled to call upon the other visiting committee or committees with whom he shall have served, and they shall contribute a proportionate part of the superannuation allowance to such officer or servant reckoned according to the service and pay of such officer or servant during his service in such asylum, and the said proportionate part shall be settled by agreement between the visiting committees, or in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State.'"—(Lord Belper.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
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

405
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 five 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 value 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 managers or authority of every asylum and affixed in a conspicuous place in the asylum.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to substitute "five years" for "ten years" ["be calculated according to the average amount of his salary or wages and emoluments during the ten years."] He regarded this as an important Amendment because the Bill provided that the calculation for pensions should be based on the average salary of the last ten years of service. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons it was suggested that the amount should be based on the amount of salary at the date of retirement. The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the matter altered the basis to the average of the last five years, but the Bill put it at ten years, and he desired to restore the basis recommended by the Select Committee. He did not pretend that he would not have preferred to restore the Bill to its original form as introduced to the House of Commons. That, however, was not altogether practicable. The London County Council submitted that the Bill would inflict a definite hardship on their employés, who expected a pension calculated on the basis of their salary during the last five years. Those officers who came under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, had their pensions calculated on the basis of their last five years' earnings, and he was glad to see that the Home Office, in giving evidence before the Select Committee, supported the same view.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 8, to leave out 'ten,' and to insert 'five.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH felt bound, after what had fallen from the Government, to say that they ought not to do anything to make the Bill more
406
favourable to the asylum workers. Under those circumstances he would go to the extreme end of his tether, and if the Bill were wrecked it would not be his fault. The success of the Bill would depend upon the benevolent or malevolent attitude of the Government, and that attitude would only be disclosed after the Committee stage had been passed.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that if he found the Government in a smiling attitude as a later stage he would move the Amendment again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to substitute "ten" for "five" years' service in line 10 ["an officer or servant with less than five years' service"]. The Amendment, he said, was due solely to a printer's error.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 10, to leave out 'five,' and to insert 'ten.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to insert a new clause which, he said, had been prepared in order to allow for the aggregation of services under both Poor Law and asylums. This was especially a London Amendment. In London the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which was a Poor Law authority, had four asylums for imbeciles and chronic invalids, and the officers went from one asylum to another. Such officers had served under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, and this Amendment would enable them to derive the benefit from the contributions so paid.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
'Where an officer or servant has been employed in a poor law asylum prior to or subsequent to his employment as an established officer or servant to which this Act applies, he shall, at the discretion of the managers or authority be entitled to reckon his entire period of employment or service in both capacities for the purpose of pension on the scale and subject to the statuory requirements affecting pensions in the service from which he last retires.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to insert a new clause after Clause 16.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 16, to insert the following new clause—
'17. In the application of this Act to Scotland a reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary for Scotland, and in the application of this Act to Ireland a reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Lord Lieutenant.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This clause merely refers to Scotland and Ireland. There is a later Amendment in the name of Lord Clifford, and in the opinion of the Home Office that is to be preferred to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he would not press the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to add the new clause standing in his name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause—
"17. In the application of this Act to Scotland—
"Asylum "means a district asylum, and "visiting committee" means a district board within the meaning of the Lunacy (Scotland) Acts, 1857–1887.
References to the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland shall be substituted for references to the Secretary of State and also for references to the local authority.
A reference to the weekly charge for pauper lunatics paid and approved from time to time pursuant to section seventy-three of the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1857, shall be substituted for the reference to the weekly sum fixed by the visiting committee under section two hundred and eighty-three of the Lunacy Act, 1890.
The expression "established officer or servant" has the meaning in this Act assigned thereto, but shall not include an officer or servant who does not devote his whole time to the duties of his office.
Provided that this Act shall apply to the Greenock parochial asylums and the Kirklands asylum, as if they were district asylums, and the
408
respective managing bodies thereof were district boards.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: Report of Amendments to be received on Monday the 8th of November next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 206.)

OATHS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
2.—(1) Any oath may be administered and taken in the form and manner described in the schedule thereto.
(2) The officer shall (unless the person about to take the oath voluntarily objects thereto, or is physically incapable of so taking the oath) administer the oath in such form and manner without question.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As the result of a general agreement with the Lord Chief Justice, I desire to move an Amendment to Clause 2, which sufficiently explains itself. It is to be hoped that this form will impress the witness and lead to a higher standard of truthfulness in the Courts.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out 'described in the schedule hereto,' and to insert following—
'The person taking the oath shall hold the New Testament in his uplifted hand and shall say or repeat after the officer administering the oath the words 'I swear by Almighty God that … . .', followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the next was a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In line 12, to leave out 'in such form and manner, 'and to insert 'in the form and manner aforesaid.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The next Amendment is very desirable in order to make provision in the case of a person who is not a Christian. It is generally agreed that this Amendment really meets a case of this kind, and that it will allow the oath to be taken in a sufficiently formal manner, whilst it will not inflict any hardship on the person to be sworn.
Amendment moved—
"In line 13, at the end of the clause, to insert 'Provided that in the case of a person who is not a Christian the oath shall be administered as nearly as may be in the form and manner aforesaid, but with such modifications of the words or ceremony as may make the same conformable to the religious faith, or binding on the conscience of such person.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
4.—(1) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of October nineteen hundred and nine.
(2) This Act shall not apply to Scotland.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend the date of the coming into operation of the Bill, in consequence of the late period of the year at which the House was sitting.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out 'October nineteen hundred and nine,' and to insert' January nineteen hundred and ten.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit the Schedule on the ground that it had been inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, to leave out the schedule."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 207.)

POLICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill is the most slovenly Bill that has been presented to your Lordships during the present session. It will be seen that the title does not cover the contents of the Bill, and I imagine that in the other House of Parliament it would have been the duty of the clerks to rule it out. From the title of the Bill, which sets forth that it is "an Act to amend the Metropolitan Police Acts, 1829 to 1899, and to make better provision for the widows and children of constables who lose their lives in the execution of their duty," one would naturally suppose that it merely relates to the Metropolitan Police; but when one looks at the Bill one finds that it alters the pensions of the police all over England. Further, it proposes a much more extraordinary change; it proposes to alter the pensions of the police all over Scotland. The Government have been so successful in their plan of concealment that the change proposed in this Bill was not discovered in Scotland by a great many town councils until quite recently. They have now sent petitions and representations pointing out how extremely wrong it is to amend an Act which applies to Scotland by means of a clause in an Act which apparently relates only to the Metropolitan Police. Moreover, there are divers bad pieces of drafting in the Bill, owing probably to the fact that the original draftsmen are no longer with us. The result is that we have Bills like the Development Bill with similar faults in them, and if it were not

411
for a protest of this nature it is impossible to imagine how legislation would be carried on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
5.—(1) At the end of paragraph (6) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Police Act, 1890 which relates to the pensions and allowances to widows and children of constables in England), the following proviso shall be added:—
"Provided further that where a constable loses his life from the effects of an injury which is not accidental, the police authority shall increase the pension to the widow to a sum equal to one-third of the annual pay of the constable, and the allowance to each child to a sum equal to one-fifteenth of such pay, or, if there is no widow, to a sum not less than one-fifteenth nor more than two-fifteenths of such pay, unless the aggregate of such pension and allowances would exceed two-thirds of such pay, in which case they shall be rateably reduced; the police authority may, however, refuse so to increase the pension to the widow on the ground of her misconduct, but any such refusal shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State."
(2) At the end of paragraph 5 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Police (Scotland) Act 1890 (which relates to the pensions and allowances to widows and children of constables in Scotland) the following proviso shall be added:—
"Provided further that where a constable loses his life from the effects of an injury which is not accidental, the police authority shall increase the pension to the widow to a sum equal to one-third of the annual pay of the constable and the allowance to each child to a sum equal to one-fifteenth of such pay, or, if there is no widow, to a sum not less than one-fifteenth nor more than two-fifteenths of such pay, unless the aggregate of such pension and allowances would exceed two-thirds of such pay, in which case they shall be rateably reduced; the police authority may, however, refuse so to increase the pension to the widow on the ground of her misconduct, but any such refusal shall be subject to confirmation by the Secretary for Scotland."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to omit the words "At the end of," which appeared at the beginning of the clause; to omit from the end of the first paragraph the words "the following proviso shall be added," and to insert the words in his Amendment. He explained that this was a drafting Amendment with a view to improving the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 14, to leave out 'At the end of '; in line 17, to leave out 'the following proviso shall be added, 'and to insert 'shall be read and construed as if the following proviso were added thereto and contained therein.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the clause was drawn by the Government's draftsman; it followed the usual form, and the Government preferred it as it stood.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If the noble Earl prefers bad drafting by all means let him have it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved an Amendment with the object of making the Bill acceptable to local authorities in Scotland The proposal was in accordance with existing procedure, and no objection to it was raised by the Secretary for Scotland.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 5, to leave out from 'to' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'the same right of appeal as is conferred by section eleven of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, in a case of forfeiture or refusal of a pension or allowance.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
6. This Act may be cited as the Police Act, 1909, and so far as it amends the Metropolitan Police Acts, 1829 to 1899, may be cited with those Acts as the Metropolitan Police Acts, 1829 to 1909, and, so far as it amends the Police Act, 1890, may be cited with the Police Acts, 1839 to 1908, as the Police Acts, 1839 to 1909, and so far as it amends the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, may be cited with the Police (Scotland) Acts, 1857 to 1890, as the Police (Scotland) Acts, 1857 to 1909.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to insert, after the words "This Act may be cited as the Police," the words "England and Scotland." He said the Amendment was proposed in order to show the people in Scotland that this Act was designed to amend a series of Acts which affected Scotland alone. It never occurred to the Scottish people to look for an enactment relating to Scotland at the fag end of an English Act.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 6, after 'Police,' to insert England and Scotland.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP pointed out that no such distinction was made in the case of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: We have no Superannuation Act relating to Scotland.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Earl has admitted that there is no precedent in previous legislation for what he proposes, and I hope he will be satisfied with his protest and not insist upon a Division.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON pointed out that there was no need for discrimination where Acts related to the whole of the United Kingdom.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN was willing to withdraw his Amendment, but hoped that in future the Government would draw their Bills in such a manner as to show to which countries they related.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 208.)

CINEMATOGRAPH BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON, who had a series of Amendments standing in his name, said the state of the law was in some confusion, as local performances were authorised by various different authorities although under almost identical circumstances. There were three sets of provisions by which such performances were allowed, and they differed in each case. He had no desire to introduce
414
further confusion but it was an anomaly that in the case of a large borough, which was not absolutely a county borough but was a long distance from a county town, it should be in the power of the county council to force people to travel that distance in order to obtain a licence for their exhibition. He would suggest that such boroughs should be allowed to grant licences in their own area. It had been suggested that there might be a difficulty from the fact that the magistrates were the authority for granting music and dancing licences, and to meet the difficulty the Government proposed to introduce voluntary delegation that did not exist in the present authorities. In order to meet the case he would propose to let the Bill stand in its present shape, and, instead of moving the printed Amendments, to add at the end of Clause 6 the following words, "In the exercise of the powers of delegation as provided in the preceding section, the provisions of this Act shall apply in the case of a borough council and an urban district council as if that council were a county council."
Amendment moved—
"At the end of Clause 6, to insert the words 'In the exercise of the powers of delegation as provided in the preceding section, the provisions of this Act shall apply in the case of a borough council and an urban district council as if that council wore a county council.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said the Government were unable to accept the Amendment even in its amended form. The purport of the Bill as it stood was perfectly clear. Cinematograph exhibitions owing to their inflammable character required special regulations and had to be carefully watched. The places in which these exhibitions were generally held were in some cases under the jurisdiction of visiting justices, and in others under a district council. It was difficult in the Bill to deal with the different localities, and for that reason the Government had deemed it better to give the power of licensing the exhibitions to the county council, or allow them to delegate it to bodies having similar powers. It must be agreed on all hands that it was better to entrust this power to the county councils with their wide experience than to small local bodies.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP said his Amendment to Clause 7 was in order to bring into

415
the scope of the Bill premises only used occasionally.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 24, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'subject to such regulations.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON entered a protest on behalf of the authorities of Glasgow that the Act should not interfere with any local regulations.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND) said there was a serious objection to making any exception in a Bill of this character. He would not like to express
416
a final opinion; but he was advised that it would be open to Glasgow or any other municipality which had special local powers either to use those local powers or to work under this Statute. The Government could not import special local powers into a Statute of this kind.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.