Lords Sitting of 22 November 1920

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the inclusion, in Orders made under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, of a provision for the maintenance of the children of the marriage under sixteen; and I ask your Lordships to give it a First Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read lª, and to be printed.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order) and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the Motion of the noble Marquess, in order that the Government may not have the appearance of treating it with any incivility, I had better, I think, repeat to him what I attempted to say on the Second Reading and make such addition as the passage of time since that period renders proper. The Government was and is in favour of the proposal of the noble Marquess, and had hoped that it would have been possible to deal with the subject during the present autumn. The noble Marquess is aware that it has been pointed out to the advocates of the measure in another place that in the view of the Government the alteration of the status

389
and salary of the Secretary for Scotland is necessarily very much connected with questions which have arisen as to the relative salaries of other Ministers. Those matters are at present under investigation by a Committee of the House of Commons, and I imagine that the position of the Secretary for Scotland, though au individual question, as is recognised, is one which will engage attention. If the noble Marquess thinks it worth while in the existing circumstances to carry his Bill to the Third Reading stage he will of course do so, without the Government attempting to place any obstacle in his way. It is possible that he nay think it a convenient course to adopt, because the time consumed, in the absence of opposition, will be so very short. The noble Marquess probably knows that the Government has found is necessary to take all the time of the House of Commons until that Assembly rises, and therefore I fear this Bill cannot he expected to make much progress there.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in answer to what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The treatment which this project has received at the hands of His Majesty's Government has caused the greatest disappointment in Scotland, and I think I can show in a few words that this is not to be wondered at. When I first brought the question before your Lordships' House in July the this year the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, expressing what I admit was a personal view, said he thought that this reform was called for, was overdue was legitimate and defensible. I was very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for those encouraging words, and, argely on the strength of them, I went forward and was so fortunate as to persuade your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill now before you.
On the Second Reading of the Bill Viscount Milner persuaded me to allow the Bill to lie on the Table. These were his words—
"In that case if, as we hope and believe, the Government are able to deal with the matter at a later stage of the session, I think you will all agree it would be the most convenient thing that it should be dealt with by a Government Bill originating in the House of Commons.…If, however, for any reason which I, do not anticipate, the Government were prevented from taking up
390
the matter at a later stage of the session, it would always be possible for the noble Lord, the Bill having been read a second time, to proceed with the further stages of in this House."
These words were reinforced by the Prime Minister, who said that the Government recognised fully the justice of the demand unanimously put forward by Scottish Members that the status of the Secretary for Scotland should be raised to that of a Secretary of State.
I ventured, when first I drew your Lordships' attention to this subject, to point out that the entanglement of this project with the question of the salaries of certain English Departments had been its downfall in the past, and I then expressed the hope that this question, which after all to Scotsmen is a national one, of the raising of the status of the Secretary for Scotland to its ancient prestige was one which might at least be considered on its own merits. Now we in Scotland observe that this matter, in which w take so much interest, has again been bound up with this other question of the salaries of various. English Ministers, and in the terms of reference to the Select Committee which is to consider this subject of salaries there is not a word about status.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess may assume that the question of status is now fully conceded.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I am much obliged for what the noble and learned Lord has said. We in Scotland, although patient, desire to see this matter put through.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure the noble Marquess stakes allowance for the difficulty in which the Government have found themselves. I can assure him that he has very few opponents in either House.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I am afraid that those who are left are sufficient to prevent the passage of this Bill immediately. I have spoken these few words—I dislike taking up your Lordships' time—only in order to inform your Lordships why I am asking you to pass this Bill through its successive stages.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this subject, which I have no claim to touch, but I

391
desire to express a certain sympathy with the view so strongly held by the noble Marquess that it is very difficult to say that this particular proposition is in any way germane to the other proposition for raising the status and also the salaries of certain English Ministers or Ministers of the Crown not specially concerned with one part of the United Kingdom. I am not going to repeat what the noble Marquess has told us about the subject of the historical claim of the Scottish Secretary, but I confess that I think the noble Marquess has a right to ask that this question should be considered alone on its merits and apart from any desire to enhance the position and pay of certain other Ministers.
I shall merely make one reservation. I have no doubt that whenever the matter is raised in another place those who raise it will be told that all of us who are perpetually preaching economy and resenting extra expenditure are the last people who ought to come forward and ask for the raising of the salary of any Minister. That is a very easy, and I venture to think a somewhat cheap retort, but I should be quite willing to say in this particular instance that any increase in the salary of the principal Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland as he would then be, ought to be compensated for by some reduction in other public expenditure. I can hardly believe that even in a country where economy is so judiciously studied as it is in Scotland there may not be some public services which might be reduced pari passu with this increase of salary. I utter this caution in order to anticipate what is the inevitable reply that will be made to my noble friend and to those who, like him, support the advancement of this particular Ministry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT IN LEAD PROCESSES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[ The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair. ]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of employment of women and young persons in certain processes connected with lead manufacture.
1. It shall not be lawful for any person to employ any woman or young person in any of the following operations:—

(a)Work at a furnace, where the reduction of zinc or lead ores is carried on:

(b)The manipulation, treatment, or reduction of ashes containing lead, the desilvering of lead, or the melting of scrap lead or zinc:

(c)The manufacture of solder or alloys containing more than ten per cent of lead

(d)The manufacture of oxide, carbonate, sulphate, chromate or silicate of lead:

(e)Mixing or pasting in connection with the manufacture or repair of electric accumulators:

(f)The cleaning of workrooms where any of the processes afore said are carried on.

LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (a), after "reduction," to insert "or treatment." The noble Lord said: There are two processes in this manufacture, one of reducing and one of roasting. This is required in the roasting process.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("reduction") insert ("or treatment").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: On behalf of the Government. I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (d), after "manufacture of," to insert "any". The noble Lord said: Doubt has been raised whether carbonate of lead would be held to include white lead, which is a hydrated carbonate of lead and is not carbonate proper. The Amendment is moved to remove possible ambiguity.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("of") insert ("any").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (d), after "chromate," to insert "acetate, nitrate." The noble Earl said:
This Amendment is moved as a result of a suggestion by the London Chamber of Commerce to the Home Office, and it is also proposed by my noble friend Lord Askwith on the ground that it would strengthen the Bill. This particular manufacture is a dangerous process, but it is understood that few women and young persons are employed in it. Nevertheless there are sonic possibly, and it is thought that the general prohibition should be applied here.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("chromate") insert ("acetate, nitrate").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ASKWITH: I agree with the noble Earl, and have put down a similar Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Regulations for employment of women and young persons in processes involving use of lead compounds.
2.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to employ in any process involving the use of lead compounds any woman of young person, unless the following regulations are complied with as respects all woman and young persons employed:—

(a)Provision must be made for drawing away from the persons employed any lead dust or lead fume by means of an efficient exhaust draught so contrived as to operate on the dust or fume as nearly as may be at its point of origin:

(b)The persons employed must undergo the prescribed medical examination at the prescribed intervals, and the prescribed record must be kept with respect to their health:

(c)No food, drink, or tobacco shall be brought into or consumed in any room in which the process is carried on, and no person shall be allowed to remain in any such room during meal times:

(d)Adequate protective clothing in a clean condition shall be provided by the employer and worn by the persons employed:

(e)Suitable cloak rooms and mess rooms, and such washing accommodation as may be prescribed, shall be provided for the use of the persons employed:

(f)The rooms in which the persons are employed, and all tools and apparatus used by them, shall be kept in a clean condition.

(2) It shall not be lawful for any person to employ in any process involving the use of lead compounds any woman or young person who has been suspended after medical examination from
394
employment in any such process on the ground that continuance therein would involve special danger to health.
(3) A factory or workshop in which there is a contravention of this section shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (1), after "any process involving the use of," to insert "soluble," and after "compounds" to insert "which are likely to produce lead fumes or dust."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment that I have placed on the Paper is covered now by the Government Amendment which comes later on. I am glad to see that the noble Earl has found, since the Second Reading, that the Bill requires some amendment. The difficulty I raised was that there was no indication that the Bill was confined to soluble lead compounds, and it would have brought in insoluble lead compounds where there is no danger but where dust is produced. The Amendment that I have on the Paper is intended to meet that difficulty, but the Government are proposing a definition of "lead compound" by which it is confined to soluble lead compounds, and I think with one consequential alteration the Government Amendment has now no objection from the point of view of those who desire soluble lead compounds alone to be dealt with. I suggest to the noble Earl that the Amendment might read "if the process is such that dust or fumes of a lead compound is produced," which would make it clear. In view of the fact that the noble Earl has added the splashing of lead, two small Amendments in the subsections will also be required. He can take the first part as it stands, if he will allow the words "dust or fumes of a lead compound" to take the place of the words "lead dust or lead fumes" in his Amendment. As far as I am concerned I shall then be satisfied.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), after "any woman or young person," to insert "if the process is such that lead dust or lead fume is produced therein or the persons employed there in are liable to be splashed with any lead compound in the course of their employment."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment and another to be moved later on are put down in order to meet certain objections

395
which have been made by the London Chamber of Commerce. Those objections were that it is only soluble lead compounds which give rise to the danger of lead poisoning, and that insoluble lead compounds or mixtures of low solubility should be excepted from the operation of the clause. There are some substances used in manufacture which contain lead compounds but are used in such a way that no danger of lead poisoning arises. Any danger of lead poisoning arises from lead fumes or lead dust, and the clause which we suggest limits it to processes which are likely to produce lead fumes or lead dust. The noble Lord has suggested certain modifications in paragraph (a) and paragraph (e), and I shall be very glad to consider them before the Report stage.
LORD ASKWITH: I will forward to the noble Earl the suggestions I make owing to the introduction of the proposal as to lead splashes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment I ant moving is designed to meet the second of the two objections that have been made. The first one, that it is only soluble lead compounds which are included, comes under Clause 5. There is a second part to this Amendment dealing with persons employed and liable to be splashed. The medical adviser to the Home Office pointed out that danger is also caused through the workers being splashed with lead compounds, such as paint, which dry on their clothing and produce lead dust. This Amendment is designed to cover that danger.
LORD ASKWITH: I propose to add, in cases where splashing may occur but mess room accommodation, washing, and so on are not required, that the women or young persons engaged should not be liable to have those amenities provided for them. It would be ludicrous to suppose that a lad painting park palings or a ship would require suitable cloak room and mess room accommodation.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the noble Lord will let me have a note of what he is proposing, I shall be very glad to consider it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("person") insert ("if the process is such that lead dust or lead fume
396
is produced there in or the persons employed there in are liable to be splashed with any lead compound in the course of their employment").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: This subsection is not required.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 32 to 34, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
"3.—(1) Where an inspector under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, suspects that any substance used or intended for use in any process in which women or young persons are èmployed contains a lead compound he may at any time take for analysis sufficient samples of that substance.
"(2) If the occupier of the factory or workshop in which any such process is carried on refuses to allow an inspector to take samples in pursuance of this section or to give him facilities for the purpose, he shall be guilty of obstructing the inspector in the execution of his duties under the said Act.
Provided that the occupier of a factory may, at the time when a sample is taken under this section and on providing the necessary appliances, require the inspector to divide the sample into two parts and to mark and seal and deliver to him one such part.
"(3)In this section the expression occupier of a factory or workshop includes any person employing a woman or young person in any process involving the use of lead compounds in any place other than a factory or workshop.
"(4)A certificate purporting to be a certificate by the Principal Chemist of the Government. Laboratory as to the result of an analysis of a sample under this section shall in any proceedings under this Act be evidence of the matters stated therein, unless either party requires the person by whom the analysis was made to be called as a witness."
The noble Earl said: This new clause is required to enable the factory inspectors to ascertain whether a substance which the women or young persons are handling comes within the scope of the Bill. Similar powers are given by the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Act, 1908, by the Home Office Regulations under the Factory Acts, by the Food and Drugs Act, and certain other statutes. Subsection (4) is based on similar provisions in the Food and Drugs Act. It makes the certificate of the principal chemist prima facie evidence of the results of an analysis.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause,—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation.
5.In this Act—
The expression "young person" means a person who is under the age of eighteen years:
The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State, and the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) and subsections (4), (6), and 17) of section seven of the Police, Factories, & c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, shall apply with respect to orders made under this Act as they apply with respect to orders made under that section.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
"The expression 'lead compound' means any compound of lead, or any mixture containing any such compound, which would, if treated with dilute hydrochloric acid, yield in solution such an amount of lead compound as would, if converted into lead monoxide, exceed five per cent of the weight when dry of the amount of the compound or mixture so treated, but does not include an alloy containing lead.
"Tests for the purpose of ascertaining whether any compound or mixture is a lead compound within the meaning of this Act shall be made in such manner as the Secretary of State may prescribe."
The noble Earl said: I have already mentioned this Amendment under Clause 2. It is designed to meet objections taken to that Clause by the London Chamber of Commerce on the ground that the Bill would include insoluble compounds and mixtures, or compounds and mixtures of low solubility. In the Home Office Regulations made under the Factory Act for pottery and other lead industries exceptions are allowed in cases where the glazes or other materials used are insoluble compounds and mixtures or contain only a very small quantity of lead, for the reason that there is no appreciable danger of lead poisoning in processes in which those compounds are used. The matter was raised by the International Labour Conference; it was not intended by their recommendation to interfere with these exceptions, and this Amendment is proposed to make the position clear. It closely follows the definition of soluble lead compounds contained in the recommendation of the Washington Conference and also the definition
398
of low solubility glazes which is contained in the Home Office Regulations for potteries. I may say that the definition of "lead compound" which appears in the Amendment has been approved by the principal Government chemist.
The test mentioned in the last paragraph for ascertaining whether the compound is soluble or not will be the same as that already in use under the Pottery Regulations. It is as follows—
"A weighed quantity of dried material is to be continuously shaken for one hour, at a common temperature, with 1,000 times its weight of an aqueous solution of hydrochloric acid containing 0·25 per cent. of hydrochloric acid. It is then allowed to stand for an hour and then passed through a filter. The lead salt contained in the clear filtrate is then precipated as lead sulphide and weighed as lead sulphate."
That is the test which is now in use, and it is thought that as this is a purely technical matter the definition of the test should be left to be prescribed by Regulation by the Secretary of State.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 21, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ASKWITH: This seems to be a rather bad way of meeting the objection. The words in the proposed clause are "if treated with dilute hydrochloric acid." The meeting at Washington, after investigation by experts, and also by recommendation of the whole Conference did not agree to such a wide phrase as that. They used the words "if treated with a quarter of one per cent of dilute hydrochloric acid at common temperature." That is the definition that was agreed to at Washington, and was accepted by Belgium, France, and other countries. This is a test which would go to those other countries and would be a simple one to follow. I cannot say from technical knowledge what is the exact difference between the Government's suggestion and the suggestion made in my Amendment. I do not know whether the noble Earl would be willing that the exact test—the amount—should not be inserted in the Bill, that it should be left vague, and that there should be a reference to an Order by the Secretary of State. The words put in this wide form are certainly misleading, and I should have thought that the words of the Washington Conference might well be inserted for the guidance of other nations, as well as of our own.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord will perhaps confer with me with regard to this matter, and, in the light of the suggestion he has made, I will see whether it could be amended on the Report stage. Of course, I cannot give an undertaking.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISAITION OF LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Power to dispose of land free from restrictive covenant.
1.—(1) Where land which, or an interest in which, has been acquired under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), was immediately before its acquisition subject to a restrictive covenant which before the fourth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty, had lawfully been contravened in pursuance of the powers conferred by section four of that Act, and the land or interest therein is disposed of in pursuance of the powers conferred by section five of that Act, it may be disposed of free from the restriction imposed by the covenant, and shall be deemed to have been so disposed of, if expressed to be disposed of in pursuance of the powers conferred by the principal Act and this Act but not otherwise.
(2) Where any such land or interest is disposed of free from such restriction, no person shall have the right of enforcing the covenant against the person to whom the land or interest is disposed of or his successors in title, but if at any time after such disposition any person who, but for this section, would have had a right to enforce the covenant, establishes such right, there shall be paid to him compensation to be determined in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Act as modified by the principal Act and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, with respect to interests in lands which have been omitted to be purchased, and upon payment of such compensation the right shall, as against him and all persons deriving title through him be absolutely discharged:
Provided that in assessing the compensation, the official arbitrator shall taken into consideration any compensation which may have been paid or be payable in respect of the covenant under section four of the principal Ac:
Provided further that this section shall not apply to any restrictive covenant entered into for the protection and maintenance of any building scheme or for the preservation of the amenities of any dwelling-house in the occupation of a person entitled to enforce such covenant.
(3) In the application of this section to Scotland "restrictive covenant" shall mean any obligation imposed by way of real burden or reservation or condition running with or affecting the land, whereby any restriction on the alienation or transfer of possession of the land, or on the use or enjoyment thereof, is effected.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL)THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL) moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), after "has been" ["has been acquired"], to insert "or is hereafter." The noble Viscount said: This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that this section should apply to land subsequently acquired for the purpose of being re-sold. That is the intention of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after ("been") insert ("or is hereafter").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to have a little further explanation, because it appears to me that this is not merely a drafting matter and that the words very materially extend the effect of the Bill. If I am wrong the noble Viscount can convince me of it. "Where land which, or an interest in which, has been acquired under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act" then certain matters follow. The main part of the noble Viscount's argument when this matter was under discussion was that the land had been acquired under circumstances which would place a heavy tax on the taxpayer without certain privileges attaching to the land which had, in fact, been so acquired. Surely it is a different matter to extend this provision, not to land which has been acquired but to land which may be acquired in the future. All the special conditions (as I may call them) which attached, no doubt, to the acquisition of land during war time have gone by now, and when you are dealing with land to be acquired hereafter that appears to me to be merely the result of an official desire to overrule the ordinary principles of law in acquiring land. I dare say the noble Viscount will explain that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did explain it at some length on the Committee stage

401
One of the objects of this Bill, as I then explained, was to enable the Government to acquire land on which large factories had been erected, in order that those factories, with the land, might then be disposed of. I pointed out that unless this was done the factories would enure to the landowner, and that factories costing half-a-million pounds, we will say, with machinery, would thus be made a present of to the landowner. This land in many cases has not yet been acquired, and what the Government want to do in this Bill is to have the power—as they thought they had—of acquiring the land on which these factories stand for the purpose of re-sale. Therefore it is clear that if they could not acquire land within the next two years the whole effect and object of the Bill, of which your Lordships have passed the Second Reading, would be defeated.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: When the noble Viscount said this is intended to enable the Government to acquire works valued possibly at millions I should like to remind him of a case which occurred not very long ago on which there was a great controversy between Lord Rosebery and the Government. At that time a quantity of rubbish had been left on the land. Are the Government going to pay compensation when they deposit, rubbish on the land, as was done in that case?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Full compensation will, of course, be paid in all those cases.
LORD PARMOOR: I understand the noble Viscount wishes to limit this power to cases where there are works already existing on land and where the land itself has not been acquired.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is the sole object of the whole Bill. It is for the purpose of acquiring that and that the Bill is introduced.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (1), after "restrictive covenant" to insert "which has been already lawfully infringed before the coming into force of this Act." The noble and learned Lord said: The noble Viscount has put down an Amendment which really is in accordance with my own Amendment. I quite accent his Amend-
402
ment. He pointed out before that he thought the words should be wider, and it should be left without the limiting words at the end. I entirely agree with him, and I think his words are better.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in pursuance of the powers conferred by Section 4 of that Act." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to make square the Amendment carried by Lord Malmesbury. The Government was against that Amendment, but it is impossible to leave the noble Earl's Amendment as it was, because it only gave a special privilege to cases of land taken under Section 4. As most of it was taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulations the Amendment did not really achieve the object which the noble Earl aimed at, and I am merely moving this Amendment in the interests of those who carried that Amendment in the Committee stage against the Government, rather than in the Government's interests.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("contravened") to the end of line 11.—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: The effect of this Amendment, as far as I understand it, is merely to leave out as Amendment which was carried by a large majority of this House only a few days ago.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, no; the noble Viscount is quite wrong. The effect of the Amendment is to give reality to the Amendment which was carried by your Lordships. It does not contravene the Amendment. It only makes it apply to all cases instead of to the few to which it applied when it was carried by your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from subsection (2) the last proviso, and to insert the following new subsection:—
"()Any person entitled to the benefit of any restrictive covenant affected by this section may, within six months after the passing of this Act, apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for an order that this section shall not apply to that covenant on the ground that the maintenance of the covenant is necessary or desirable for the protection of any building scheme or for the preservation of the amenities of any dwelling-house in the occupation of the applicant, and the Commission, if satisfied that having regard to all

403
the circumstances it is desirable to do so, may make an order accordingly, or may refuse to make such an order, or may make an order modifying the restrictions imposed by the covenant:
"Provided that where it is proposed to dispose of any land or interest in land affected by any such covenant before the expiration of the said period d of six months, the occupying department shall take such steps as may be required by the Commission for notifying the proposed disposal to the persons entitled to the benefit of any such covenant, and thereupon the land or interest may be sold free from the restrictive covenant unless that person within such time as the Commission may prescribe makes an application under this subsection, in which case the land shall not be so sold until the application is disposed of."
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that an Amendment was carried against the Government saying that this clause should not apply to any restrictive covenant entered into for the protection and maintenance of any building schemes or the preservation of the amenities of a dwelling-house. That Amendment was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, and I pointed out at the time that if it was carried it would render it impossible for the Government to sell a large number of the factories which had been erected on land subject to these restrictive covenants. Unfortunately it was carried against the Government, with great loss to the taxpayer. It is not a question of getting a less price. It is a question whether the buildings could be disposed of at all.
In the course of the discussion in Committee I threw out a hint which was, I think, favorably received by Lord Selborne and other noble Lords on the Bench opposite, that instead of having this very drastic prevention of the Government doing anything at all the question of whether or not these covenants should be infringed (subject of course, to full compensation) should be placed before the Railway and Canal Commission. The Commission would be in a position to say, "It is true you are going to pay compensation, but the case is so hard as regards the amenities of the dwelling-house or the building scheme that you ought not to do it." The matter would be entirely before the Railway and Canal Commission, and the Amendment I propose provides the machinery for doing this.
In the first part of the new subsection those people who have these rights can go within six months to the Railway and Canal Commission and establish them, and
404
The Commission, if it thinks fit, can say that their claim is absolute and that the Government, therefore, cannot buy them out. Their restrictive covenant is retained. The second part of the new subsection provides that if the authority before the six months are out desires to acquire the land free of restrictive covenants, then they must go before the Railway and Canal Commission. They notify the proposed disposal in such a way as is determined by the Commission; and again the matter is decided by the Commission. The effect of the Amendment is this. There will be judicial discretion left to the Railway and Canal Commission to say whether these restrictive covenants shall be abolished after compensation is paid or whether they shall be retained.
This I offer as a "half-way house" between the Amendment moved by Lord Sumner and the proposal of the Government. I do not put it forward with great enthusiasm. It means delay; and when I suggested it to those interested they were appalled at the fact that there would be some loss of time and possible buyers might be put off. In addition, a good many officials who might otherwise have been demobilised will have to be retained. However, I hope that your Lordships will see your way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved —
Clause 1, page 2, leave cut lines 9 to 13, aid after line 13 insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD SUMNER: Although I am not one of the "noble Lords opposite" to whom the noble Viscount appealed, I was the mover of the Amendment which was carried on a Division last Thursday which the noble Viscount now invites the House to reverse.
VISCOUNT PEEL: To alter.
LORD SUMNER: No, reverse; and I should like to say a few words about it before noble Lords opposite make up their mind on the subject. It is a sufficient indication of the bureaucratic nature of the proposal that is now put before your Lordships to point out that when the result of a full discussion and Division was as the noble Viscount says unfortunately decided against the Government the officials are consulted, and they proceed to draft something or other which is to be

405
Prefaced by a complete annulment of the Amendment your Lordships carried last week. I will say no more about the merits of that Amendment The difficulties of moving it were that we did not know the facts as the Department and the noble Viscount did. We had to assume that there were cases—we could not tell whether they were many or few—in which such a breach might be made in the system of restrictive covenants as would do great injustice to the individual; and if it did injustice to the individual, that is quite a sufficient answer to the plea that has been put before us that we were doing injustice to the taxpayer.
I will not detain your Lordships by going over the ground again. I will only draw your attention to what the present Amendment proposes. Haying got rid of the Amendment which was carried, the noble Viscount now proposes to give persons who are entitled to the benefit of restrictive covenants of the character referred to, not the right to stand outside this new measure altogether, but the right to apply within a strictly limited time to the Railway and Canal Commission and to ask that Commission whether, having regard to all the circumstances, they are to have the benefit of the covenants or not. He further proposes, n eases where the Department desires to sell the land within this period of six months, that instead of allowing the covenanters the full six months in which to decide what they will do, the occupying Department is to take steps as may be required by the Commission, to notify the proposed sale to the persons interested, and unless these persons take such steps as may be required in order to get the opinion of the Commission upon the matter the land may be sold free from the restrictive covenants without going before the Commission at all.
See what this proposes to do at the expense of persons who are having their rights interfered with by this Bill for the benefit of the Departments who have to dispose of these properties. First of all it gives them a strictly limited time within which to apply at all. Secondly, it assumes that they will know whether the Department is going to sell the property or is not, and they are to frame their course accordingly. If they do not know of this Bill when it is passed, I suppose the answer is that it is everybody's business to read
406
all the Acts of Parliament that are passed and find out with great promptitude whether one ought to go to a solicitor or not. It is perhaps to make a useless appeal to say that there are so many Acts of Parliament passed nowadays that nobody can read them all, and that they are so complicated and sometimes so badly drafted that nobody can hope to understand them all.
At any rate, the first obligation that this puts upon the covenantee is to say, "You must find out about this Act at your peril. If you fail to find out about it you will lose your rights." The second is that he has to lied out whether the Department proposes to sell or does not propose to sell, because if he does not know whether not the Department is trying to sell the premises, or whatever it is, he may perfectly reasonably say to himself, "Under the Act of 1916 I am going to get this land back with the old restrictive convenants attaching to it. Why should I stir? I have not heard that they are going to sell it. I will rely upon what I understand to be my rights under the Act of 1916. I do not come within this amending clause. "Unless the Departments are prepared to notify to everybody who is entitled to the benefit of such a covenant that they are proposing to dispose of the land or the buildings, or whatever it is, it is quite unfair, I submit, to expect a private person to decide whether he will take steps or not.
The third point is that the burden of taking steps is thrown upon the private person. He cannot get the benefit of the restrictive covenant under this proposal unless he spends his money and takes up his time by going, properly equipped with solicitor and counsel, to the Railway and Canal Commission and takes upon himself the burden of persuading that Commission that he is entitled to have his covenants left alone. I submit that it ought to be the other way about. The presumption ought to be that the covenants will not be discharged unless the disposing Department first of all inform everybody who is interested that the matter is going to be brought before the Railway and Canal Commission; secondly, take the initiative in going before the Railway and Canal Commission; and, thirdly —if they get what they want —when they have got what they want, pay all the costs of it. It is all very well to say that that is expending

407
Public money for the benefit of private persons; but it certainly is a very surprising way of treating landowners to enact that unless they go at their own cost and at their own instance, and with information which they must find out for themselves, to the Railway and Canal Commission—not a very inexpensive tribunal —and persuade that tribunal to let them have the benefit of the covenants they have entered into, those covenants shall be discharged. I suggest to the noble Viscount that before his Amendment can be made really fair to the persons with whom he is dealing he ought to introduce provisions at least meeting the objections which I have ventured to adduce.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think the extremely lucid speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has made a conclusive argument against the impropriety and injustice of the Amendment which is now suggested by the noble Viscount opposite. As far as I am concerned, I shall do my best to support the noble and learned Lord, though I do not think any further argument is needed on my part.
May I, however, say one word in reference to something that fell from the noble Lord who talked of all these Acts which have been passed with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land? In the whole course of my Parliamentary experience I have never known anything like it. My attention was first called to this by reading the Agriculture Bill which is still in the House of Commons. To my immense surprise, what did I find in connection with that Bill? I found that the measure, which is designed to affect all classes of the agricultural industry, is as a matter of fact mostly drafted by that highly intolerable method, so common in these days, of reference. And not only that, but of reference to seven or eight different measures which have been passed comparatively recently with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land, I think it about time a stop was put to this kind of thing, and as far as I am concerned any measure of this kind giving these powers to Departments with regard to land will be opposed to the best extent of my power at all events.
I cannot imagine what is the meaning of all this. Day after day and year after year Bills of this kind are placed upon the
408
Table—Bills which the agricultural public would never be able to understand under any circumstances whatever. It is not my business to refer to the Agriculture Bill now, but I will just say that having read the whole of it as carefully as I can, I am certain that no one but a trained Parliamentary expert can possibly understand what it means, having to refer to heaven knows how many different Acts of Parliament. It is a task which I cannot understand any Government having agreed to impose upon the agricultural public. As far as I am concerned, if I can get anybody to go with me I shall oppose this Amendment. A decision was arrived at by a very large majority in a good House the other day; now advantage is to be taken of a thin House like this to repeat it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am always very ready to take suggestions from your Lordships on these points, and I feel that there is some force in what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Sumner) has said. If he agrees to allow me to move out his Amendment, I will move an Amendment of this kind—that is to say, I will not press the first portion of my Amendment, and so alter the proviso that in all these cases the onus will, as he suggests ought to be the case, be laid upon the Government Department which wishes to acquire the land to give notice to the person interested; then the matter can come before the Railway and Canal Commission. I think that would meet the main point that he made, and I am quite ready to put down an Amendment on Third Reading carrying that out.
LORD SUMNER: As the noble Viscount has made an appeal to me, may I say that I cannot possibly undertake to form an opinion, still less to express it, on an Amendment orally suggested for the first time. This is a complicated matter. Surely if I have had the good fortune to make some impression on the noble Viscount and to induce him to admit that there may be some hardships in the proposal he has made, the right course would be for him to bring up a different proposal on the Third Reading—
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is what I am proposing.
LORD SUMNER:—and to leave this Amendment of mine standing until the

409
Third Reading, and then let us see on the Paper what the noble Viscount really is prepared to support.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I appeal to the noble Viscount to withdraw the Amendment. Consider the position on Thursday night, which was the last night on which your Lordships sat. A definite decision was then come to. Many noble Lords were not even aware that the Government proposed to sit on Monday. Yet on the first day that we meet the noble Viscount proposes practically to undo the previous decision.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Well, completely alter it; and Peers did not see the words until they came into the House to-day. I hope the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw the Amendment and deal with the question on Third Reading. In order to give him that opportunity I venture to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned—(The Earl of Midleton)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope the noble Earl will not press that. I have already given an undertaking that I will bring up an Amendment on the Third Reading to carry out what the noble and learned Lord desires. I do not think I can be reasonably expected to do more, and I think the noble Earl might withdraw.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Rut the noble Viscount strikes OM the words inserted by the House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was perfectly ready to leave the thing as it is, and I have stated that twice already I do not think I can be expected to do more.
LORD SUMNER: The noble Viscount does not move?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I moved to leave out lines 9 to 13 on page 2, and I withdraw.
Motion for the adjournment of the debate, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 3:
Provision as to acquisition and possession of land under the principal Act.
3.—(1) It is hereby declared that—
(a)the power of acquiring land or interest in land conferred by section three of the principal Act authorizes, and shall be deemed always to have authorized, such acquisition for the purposes of re-sale, in cases when such re-sale is required with a view to the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works erected or constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or of any State which acted in alliance or in naval or military cooperation with His Majesty during the war, or when for any other reason it appears to the Railway and Canal Commission expedient in the financial interests of the State or of such State that the acquisition for such purposes should be authorised;
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection 1 (a), after "erected," to insert "executed." The noble Viscount said: This is drafting.
Amendment moved —
Page 3, line 8, after ("erected") insert ("executed").—(Viscount Peel)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: Will the noble Viscount tell us, as this is legislation by reference, whether the land which is involved in the Amendment includes common land?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, it does not include common land.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection 1 (a), to leave out "to the Railway and Canal Commission." The noble and learned Lord said: I am afraid this is rather a technical point, but I think one of great importance on which the noble Viscount expressed a view when the matter was in Committee in your Lordships' House. We are dealing here with a new matter altogether; that is, the power to acquire land, or interest in land, for the purpose of resale. That is not authorised at present, and if land is to be acquired for a purpose of that kind it is obviously a wide purpose. During the Committee stage it was suggested that this ought not to be done without an appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission in all cases. I think it is clear that that is not provided for as

411
the clause stands, because it goes on to say—
"such acquisition for the purpose of re-sale, in cases when such re-sale is required with a view to the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works erected, executed or constructed wholly or partly at the expense of the State…or when for any other reason it appears to the Railway and Canal Commission…
Therefore, whatever may be the meaning of those words there was no intervention of the Railway and Canal Commission when the re-sale was required with a view to the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works. That is clear on the clause as it stands, and I think the noble Viscount recognised it in Committee. He stated then that in his view there ought to be such an appeal to the Commission in all cases and that he thought it existed under the 1916 Act. I travel with him so far. I have looked carefully into the 1916 Act and if he is right my words would be unnecessary, although I think the words of his clause ought to be re-formed. That might be a matter for subsequent consideration.
When I come to look at the 1916 Act I do not know that such a power of appeal does exist. If the noble Viscount would point out where he thinks it is I might agree with him and that might take away the necessity of pursuing my Amendment. We are agreed, I understand, as to what we want, and it is only a question of whether it is given or ought to be introduced. If the noble Viscount can satisfy me I would not press the Amendment.
Amendment proposed —
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("to the Railway and Canal Commission").—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord is perfectly right. We are agreed on the point. As I said in Committee, I was not quite certain whether the consent of the Railway and Canal Commission had to be sought in all these cases. I was at that time reading the section and had not in my mind the governing subsection in the Act of 1916, which I will read.
LORD PARMOOR: What section is that?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Section 13, subsection (5)—
"Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land without the consent
412
of the Commission where the purposes for which it is to be acquired are purposes other than those for which land can be acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903.
None of the cases falling under the clause are dealt with under the Defence Acts or the Military Lands Acts, and it therefore follows that they all fall under this subsection (5) and must be dealt with by the Railway and Canal Commission. May I say to the noble and learned Lord that I object to his word "appeal"? It suggests a Court from which you appeal. Nothing can be done without going to the Commission in the first instance.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged. If that is so the words that I propose to leave out ought to be omitted, because Clause 8 brings in the Railway and Canal Commission in one case and not in the other. I assume that what the noble Viscount said about the Act is right; but in order to carry that out, as a matter of drafting and making it clear, the words I propose to leave out ought to be omitted. Then the whole matter would come under the principal Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I see the point of the noble and learned Lord, but I think it is surplus.
LORD PARMOOR: It might be misleading, I think.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will look into that point. I understood that it was because the financial interests of the State were brought in for consideration. If there is the slightest doubt about it I will put down an Amendment to omit the words.
LORD PARMOOR: Having regard to the statement made, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Provisions as to retention of possession and acquisition of land belonging to railway companies, etc.
5.—(1) For paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section thirteen of the principal Act, the following paragraph shall be substituted:—
"(b) land belonging to any company or corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, other than—

413

(i) land which having before the commencement of the present war been used for the purposes of the undertaking, had before that date ceased to be so used; and

(ii) land which had never been so used before that date, or which has been acquired by the company or corporation by agreement without statutory powers for the purpose, not being in either ease shown to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commission to be land required for the purposes of the undertaking."

(2) Whore muter the said subsection the consent of the appropriate Government department to the retention of the possession of land mentioned in the said paragraph (b) is requested by the occupying department, the first-mentioned department, in determining whether consent shall be given, shall take into consideration the expediency of such retention for enabling the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings I works erected or constructed on the land wholly or partly at the expense of the State
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: On behalf of Lord Clinton I do not move the three, Amendments standing in his name—to leave oat the clause, and to leave out subsections (1) and (2)—on the understanding, which I believe has been retched with the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, that the words on page 5, line 14, after "date" to the word purpose "in line 16 be omitted, and in line 25, after the word "consideration," the words be omitted to the end of the paragraph, and the words "all the circumstances of the case" be added. I think that has been arranged.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment on the Paper is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after ("erected") insert ("executed").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for Ale consideration of the Fifth Report of the Select Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORF): My Lords,
414
I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ªand to be printed.

CRIMES IN IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, before the House adjourns I beg to ask His Majesty's Government—perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be able to answer—whether they are in a position to give any further particulars about the deplorable series of crimes in Ireland, report, of which we saw in the newspapers this morning. So far as I could gather from what appeared in the Press, no official account had been received at the time the newspapers went to press, and I think it is possible that His Majesty's Government may by now be in receipt of souse further information.
There is one point upon which I should particularly desire to be informed if possible—namely, as to the number of criminals who were concerned in these outrages. One saw reports that in Some Cases as number of men, estimated at as many as twenty, came to a house and perpetrated a murder. Whet her cite murders were effected in turn by the same gang of men, or by different gangs, is not clear from the accounts, but the general impression conveyed by the reports is that a very large number of persons must have been engaged in the commission of these crimes. That of course, is an important point, because it has hitherto been assumed that the actual number of persons concerned in the different assassinations has not been very large, as was the case forty years ago when it was believed that the whole gang of those who called themselves Invincibles did not exceed something like forty persons. If the noble and learned Lord can give us any information on that point, we shall be exceedingly glad to be informed.
THE LORD CRANCELLOR: My Lords, I will give your Lordships all the information which is in the possession of the Government. These appalling trans-

415
actions, as the noble Marquess well describes them, have resulted in fourteen deaths and in injuries to six persons, including one of the assassins. Five persons were captured, with arms in their possession, upon one or other of the premises involved. The detailed circumstances so far as they are at present known were as follows, the cases being distinguished under letters—
Case A. 119, Lower Baggot-street. One murder. Captain Baggalley, court martial officer, was shot dead. When the police arrived every occupant of the house had left, and no witness was available to describe the circumstances. Captain Baggalley had lost a leg in the war, and was a barrister by profession. He had been employed as prosecutor on Courts-Martial. Nothing, of course, is known as to the number who took part.
Case B. 28, Erlsfort-terrace. One murder. The leader of the murderers rang a bell and asked the maid for Colonel Fitzpatrick. She disclosed the whereabouts of the bedroom of Captain Fitzgerald. The leader then called in about twenty men who were placed in positions in the hall. He then entered Captain Fitzgerald's room. The maid heard his shouts, and the assassin's voice say "Come on." Four shots were fired into the body in rapid succession. The police found Captain Fitzgerald in bed in a pool of blood. His forehead was shattered with bullets, and another had gone through the heart and one wrist, which he had held up to ward off the shot. All fired point blank.
Case C. 22, Lower Mount-street. One murder. The maid opened the door, twenty men rushed in, and demanded to know the bedrooms of Mr. Mahon and Mr. Peel. Mr. Mahon's room was pointed out. They entered, and five shots were fired immediately at a few inches range. Mr. Mahon was killed. At the same time others attempted to enter Mr. Peel's room. The door was locked. Seventeen shots were fired through the panels. Mr. Peel escaped uninjured. Meanwhile another servant, hearing the shots, shouted from an upper window to a party of officers of the Auxiliary Division who had left Beggars Bush Barracks to catch an early train southward for duty. These officers at once attacked the house, after despatching two of their number, Temporary Cadets
416
Morris and Garniss, to their depôt for reinforcements. They chased the assassins through the house and captured one whom their fire had wounded, and three others, all of whom were armed. Reinforcements on arrival were asked the whereabouts of Morris and Garniss, but replied that they knew nothing, and that the cadets had never arrived at the depôt. The reinforcements had arrived, of course, after hearing the firing. Search was made, and the bodies of Cadets Morris and Garniss were found by a Red Cross nurse lying in a neighbouring garden. They had apparently been intercepted by the murderers' pickets, taken to the back of the house, placed against the wall, and murdered. Both these officers had seen considerable service in the recent war in France.
Case D. At Briama, 117, Forehampton-road, murder of one officer and two civilians. Just before nine a party of between twelve and twenty armed men knocked at the door and it was opened by a boy of ten years, the son of Mr. Smith, the householder. They rushed into the house and dragged Mr. Smith and Captain McLean (who were in bed with their wives) into a front spare bedroom. Mr. Caldow, the brother of Mrs. McLean, was thrust in beside them, and all three were shot in cold blood. Captain McLean and Mr. Smith were dead before an ambulance could arrive. Mr. Caldow is seriously wounded. Mr. Thomas Henry Smith, already described as the landlord, was a man of about forty-five years of age and leaves a wife and three children. Captain McLean, who served with the Rifle Brigade during the war along with his brother-in-law, Mr. John Caldow, a native of Prestwich, Scotland, had come to Ireland with a view of securing employment in the police. Captain McLean leaves a wife and child. Both Mrs. Smith and Mrs. McLean were in the house when their husbands were murdered. It is said that the assassins dragged their victims to an empty room to murder them, as Captain McLean, when overpowered, implored them not to murder him under his wife's eyes. On completing their dastardly work the murderers rushed out of the house and disappeared.
Case E. 92, Lower Baggot-street, one murder. A party of raiders numbering

417
a dozen were let in by Mrs. Slack, the tenant of the house, and asked for Captain Newbury. Captain Newbury was a Court-Martial officer who lived there with his wife. Seeing the crowd the landlady rushed upstairs in terror and saw nothing of what happened afterwards. The men knocked at Captain Newbury's door; Mrs. Newbury opened it, and seeing a crowd of men armed with revolvers slammed the door in their faces and locked it. The men burst the door open, but the Newburys escaped to an inner room. Captain Newbury and wife together tried to hold the door against them and almost succeeded in shutting it when the men fired through the door wounding Captain Newbury, who though losing blood nevertheless got to the window, flung it open, and was half-way out when the murderers burst into the room. Mrs. Newbury flung herself in their way, but they pushed her aside and fired seven shots into her husband's body. The police found the body Calf in and half out, covered with a blanket which Mrs. Newbury, though in a prostrate condition, had placed over it It is reported that her resolution and her subsequent grief strongly affected the party of police who made the discovery. It is worthy of notice that the murderers in this case, as in two or three others, made diligent search for papers, hoping, perhaps, to find and abstract documents or evidence on which the military law officers were supposed to be working at the time.
Case F. 28, Upper Pembroke-street. Two officers murdered ark four wounded. The residence of Mrs. Gray was raided at 9 o'clock this morning by about twenty men, some of whom came on bicycles. The house consists of several flats. The raiders, who were armed and undisguised, held up a maid on the stairs, and Mrs. Gray, the proprietress, who was leaving her room, was simultaneously detained. The house appeared to be familiar to them, as they broke up into parties, and went with evident knowledge to various parts of the house. From ten to twelve shots were heard, and, following these, the assassins decamped. Mrs. Gray and her maid visited the rooms immediately and found that Major Dowling, of the Grenadier Guards, had been shot dead at his bedroom door. Captain Price, of the Royal Engineers, was found dead
418
in the next room door. Captain Kenlyside, of the Lancashire Fusiliers, whose wife most gallantly struggled with the murderers and thereby frustrated their purpose, was wounded in the arm. Colonel Woodcock was fired at as he came downstairs. He appeared to have taken unawares the raiders who were in the hall. Be called out to Colonel Montgomery who was coming out of his room and was wounded in the body. Turning towards his room to secure a weapon Colonel Woodcock was also wounded. Colonel Woodcock and Colonel Montgomery both belong to the Lancashire Fusiliers. A sixth officer, Mr. Murray, of the Royal Scots, was also wounded as he descended the stairs. A lady resident in the house went from room to room seeking help and in every room found only dead, dying, or wounded men.
Case G. 38, Upper Mount-street. Two murders This house was entered at 9.10 a.m. by twenty armed, unmasked men who were let in by a servant, Catherine Farrell, who unwillingly and under constraint pointed out the rooms occupied by Lieutenant Aimes, of the Grenadier Guards, and Lieutenant Bennett, of the R.A.S.C., Motor Transport. The maid rushed upstairs and warned an officer who was sleeping on the upper floor, and another male lodger, that murder was being done downstairs. A fusilade of shots was heard. When they came down-stairs they found two bodies in a pool of blood in Aimes's bedroom. Bennett had evidently been dragged from the bedroom in his bedclothes into his brother officer's room where both were shot together, their bodies lying side by side.
Case H. Gresham Hotel, Sackvillestreet. Two murders. Here a party of fifteen to twenty men entered the open door of the hotel, held up the boots and the head-porter with revolvers and forced the latter, Hugh Callaghan, to lead them to rooms occupied by Ex-Captain Patrick McCormack, formerly a captain in the Army Veterinary Corps, and Lieutenant L. E. Wilde. The party, one of whom carried a huge hammer, knocked first at Room 14 occupied by Mr. Wilde. He opened the door and asked, "What do you want?" By way of answer three shots were fired into his chest simultaneously. The party then moved

419
to Room 24, which they entered and found Mr. McCormack sitting in bed reading the paper. Without any communication five shots were fired into his body and head as he sat there. The bed was saturated, and the body, especially the head, was horribly disfigured.
My Lords, that melancholy list summarises the murders to which the noble Marquess has directed attention. He invited me to give any information which was available as to the numbers of those who took part in the various raids. In all cases which I have enumerated where the numbers are precisely known they have, I think, been given. In other cases an estimate has been attempted. It will be observed that the time at which these various outrages took place renders it necessary in the main to resist the conclusion that a limited number of murderers went from house to house. The number must be assumed to be very considerable. It is probable that your Lordships will think that these matters deserve and indeed require discussion in a manner more formal than would be possible on a Motion for the
420
adjournment. I would only add at this stage that, as far as one can judge —it is merely a reassurance as to later events—everything is normal in Dublin to-day. Outward trains are not running, and all motor cars are severely restricted. There have been no fresh disturbances since the events which appeared in the Press to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I merely desire to thank the noble and learned Lord for the full information which he has been able to give us—all the more terrible and impressive from being couched in mere official language, and not in any way added to by terms of a picturesque sort such as might appear in accounts in the public Press. I fear, from what the noble and learned Lord has said, that there can be no doubt that the answer to the specific question that I put is that an appallingly large number of persons must have been engaged in these outrages, and, of course, the implication from that is a very serious one, on which it is not necessary to dwell at this moment.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.