Sitting of 17 June 1892

QUESTIONS.

  BARRACKS AT LEEDS AND BRADFORD.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether £100,000 is about to be expended upon the re-construction of Leeds Barracks; and whether, in view of the fact that the Bradford Barracks are in a dilapidated and insanitary condition, and have long
  1452
  stood in need of thorough repair, it not of total re-building, the War Department is prepared to take into consideration the case of Bradford, as well as that of Leeds, in regard to barrack accommodation?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): My hon. Friend is in error in supposing that £100,000 is about to be expended for this purpose. About £23,000 will be expended in the re-construction of Leeds Barracks. The Barracks at Bradford are not up to the modern standard, but it is not known that their condition is insanitary. It is not proposed to re-construct them to any great extent, as the case is essentially different from that of Leeds.
  MR. REED: Will my hon. Friend direct further inquiry to be made into the state of Bradford Barracks?
  MR. BRODRICK: Certainly; I shall be glad to cause inquiry now that attention has been called to the subject.

  VOLUNTEERS AND JURY SERVICE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is correctly understood that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to take legislative power to exempt officers and non-commissioned officers of the Volunteer Force from jury service?
  MR. BRODRICK: My hon. Friend will share my regret that no legislation in the direction of exempting officers and non-commissioned officers of the Volunteer Force from jury service is possible this Session. But, so far as the officers and non-commissioned officers of Volunteers are concerned, the Secretary of State thinks a very good case has been made out for exempting them from jury service, which we desire to see carried out by law.

  THE CAVAN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what decision has been arrived at as to the payment of the costs, &c., in the case of Ryan v. the Guardians of the Cavan Union?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GOHST,): In accordance with the pledge I gave the other

  1453
  night, I wrote to the Local Government Board in Ireland saving that, if the facts were substantially as stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Knox), the opinion of the Treasury was that the costs should be repaid. I have not yet received any answer to that.

  ENGLISH LEATHER AND FRENCH CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Under I Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on three occasions in the last half of last year—namely, in the case of goods forwarded 28th July, 2nd September, and 16th October respectively, the French Customs Authorities refused to admit leather tanned and curried by Mr. William Pan1, at the Oak Tannery, Leeds, at the rate of duty applicable to English leather under the most favoured nation clause, the French officials contending that the leather in question was of American origin, and that the extra, tax and fines imposed upon Mr. Paul in consequence of the action of the French Customs Authorities amounted to a sum of over £230, apart from indirect losses inflicted upon him; whether he is aware that in spite of a sworn declaration by Mr. Paul, countersigned by the French Consul in Leeds, that the leather in question was tanned and curried at the Oak Tannery in Leeds, and an offer on his part to pay the expenses of an official of the French Customs to Leeds for the purpose of seeing similar goods actually undergoing the process of tanning and currying, he has, nevertheless, failed to obtain any redress for the injustice done him; and whether the Government will undertake to make representations to the French Authorities in order to secure that the clause in their Tariff' Bill admitting English goods into France at the minimum rate of duty shall be given due effect to?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The facts mentioned in the first and second paragraphs of the question are substantially correct. Representations were made to the French Government, but the reply received showed that the goods in question had three times been examined by experts;
  1454
  on the first occasion the experts decided unanimously that the goods were of extra-European origin; on the second occasion there was a difference of opinion, but on the third occasion upon four fresh experts being summoned and the matter reconsidered, they decided unanimously that the goods were of extra-European origin. The French Government have declined to make any change in the existing law in this respect.

  JOHN MITCHEL'S LIFE AND WRITINGS.
  MR. KNOX (for Dr. TANNER,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why certain historical books, recommended by the acting Catholic Chaplain to Armagh Prison, namely, Mitchel's History of Ireland and The Life of John Mitchel were disallowed by the General Prisons Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I am informed that the person mentioned in the question was convicted of treason felony in 1848, and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. His writings are incitements to treason, and such as should not, in the opinion of the Prisons Board, be admitted to the Prison library.

  UNSANITARY WORKSHOPS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON:: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has, as yet, in any case, enforced Sections 1 and 2 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, which provides that, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the sanitary provisions in regard to workshops have not been duly carried out by the Local Authority, he may intervene; whether the Inspectors have, under Section 26, received due notice of the opening of workshops since the passing of the Act; whether they have further duly forwarded the notification to the Sanitary Authority of the district; and whether he has, under Section 27, made any order requiring the occupier of any workshop, or any contractor employed by any occupier, to keep lists of those employed by him; and, if so, whether any penalty has been inflicted for non-compliance with the order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have hitherto received no complaints requiring the intervention of the Home Office under Sections 1 and 2 of the Factory Act of last Session. I may point out to the hon. Member that such intervention should only take place where there has been clear neglect or default on the part of the Local Authority. The Inspectors of Factories have received full instructions to require occupiers of workshops to send them notices as prescribed by the 26th section of the Act, and to forward such notices to the Sanitary Authority. Further instructions to the like effect were issued to the Inspectors on the 8th of this month requesting them to see to the strict observance of the 26th Section, and to forward prosecution reports where they found any occupier who had failed to send the required notice. To what extent the Inspectors have received these notices I am unable to say without further time for inquiry; and I am about to issue a Circular calling for information on the subject. With regard to the fourth paragraph of the question, I have had the provisions of the 27th section of the Act under my consideration, and I have been collecting information as to the trades and localities in which it would be expedient to issue orders.
  MR. BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in reference to the Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, and the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, he has sent out any Circular to the Local Authorities in London, drawing their attention to the new duties imposed on them in respect to workshops; what arrangements have been made for carrying out the law in regard, on the one hand, to notification by the medical officer to the Factory Inspector if the former becomes aware that any child, young person, or woman is being employed in a workshop; and, on the other, to notification on the part of the Factory Inspector to the Local Authority when the former receives notice of the opening of a workshop; and whether he is in a position to state that any improvement has taken place in the sanitary condition of the workshops in
  1456
  London since the passing of the before mentioned Acts?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Factory and Workshop Act, 1891, and the Public Health (London) Act came into operation on the 1st January last, and I caused a Circular Letter to be addressed on the 30th November last to the several Sanitary Authorities in London drawing their attention to the new duties imposed on them in respect of workshops. The duties of the Factory Inspector as regards notification to the medical officer, and of the medical officer with respect to notification to the Factory Inspector, are specifically prescribed by the Statute, and those duties were referred to in the Circular of the Local Government Board. I have had no complaint that the requirements of the Statute as regards these matters have not been duly complied with. The Annual Reports of the Medical Officers of Health in London are usually made for the year ending the 31st December and I have not received any communication either from the Sanitary Authorities or the Medical Officers of Health which would enable me to express any opinion on the question as to the improvement in the sanitary condition of London workshops since the 1st January in the present year. Of course, the Act has been in operation but a short time, and I hardly think it is desirable to call for a special Report yet; but I am watching the matter carefully, and when the time arrives to take action I shall be prepared to do so.

  PETROLEUM IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will name the provision, if any, in the Concessions of the Suez Canal Company giving authority to make, what has-hitherto been and is optional, by its mere motion compulsory and binding, in the matter of the exclusion, by virtue of the provisional regulations, of petroleum tank steamers from the Canal, when such vessels do not happen to have been constructed in accordance with the terms of such regulations?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: This question refers to a matter of law, namely, the

  1457
  construction of the Charter and Concessions of the Canal Company, which is at present the subject of litigation in the Egyptian Courts; and it is not within the province of Her Majesty's Government to express any opinion upon it.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relating to the Inter-Departmental Commission, with reference to the provisional regulations of the Suez Canal Company, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  *MR. LOWTHER: These Papers are in the printer's hands, and will be distributed as soon as possible.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a conference of the Inter-departmental Commission (British) of 1891 was held before or after the adoption of the principle of allowing ships laden with bulk oil to pass along the Suez Canal; would he state on what date or dates the Commission met; and whether any rules on the subject were adopted, modified, or abandoned in consequence of direct negotiations between the Commission and the Government Directors of the Suez Canal or the Company itself?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The date of the meeting of the Inter-departmental Commission was December, 1891. The action of the Commission and its results will appear from the Papers which have been laid and which will be distributed as soon as possible. They are now in the printer's hands.
  MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the possible dual system of rules adopted by the Suez Canal Company and the Egyptian Government, Her Majesty's Government would urge the Suez Canal Company to suspend the Provisional Regulations until Egypt has declared in the matter or abandoned her police rights in reference to bulk petroleum in or on the waters of the Suez Canal, or in the ports situated in, or along, and adjacent to the Canal, and pending the decision of the Egyptian Courts as to the legality or illegality of the Provisional Regulations.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I replied yesterday to an almost identical question put to me by the hon. Member for West Limerick (Mr. Abraham), and I have nothing to add to the answer I then gave.
  MR. PHILIPPS(for Mr. LLOYD MORGAN,): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any communication of a special character relating to the passage of bulk petroleum through the Suez Canal, between the Foreign Office and the Suez Canal Company, prior to the admission of the principle of the passage of ships laden with bulk oil by the Directors of the Suez Canal, including the nominees of the Government on the administration of the Canal?
  *MR. LOWTHER: No such communication as that referred to in the hon. Member's question took place.

  H.M.S. "WANDERER."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before converting the "Wanderer," which in 1884 cost £46,232, into a training brig, he will first obtain tenders for a new steel vessel; whether he is aware that a new sailing brig, similar in tonnage to the "Wanderer," may be purchased complete for sea, with the exception of guns, for about £12,000; can he state the cost of converting her; and whether the model and dimensions are such as to make her a desirable ship under canvas?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): For the particular service for which it is intended to convert the "Wanderer" an iron or steel vessel is not desirable, as a training brig is chiefly employed on the coast and frequently in shallow waters. When converted the "Wanderer" will be quite suitable for the purpose. The cost of the conversion will be about £6,000.

  H.M.S. "AGINCOURT."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty the nature of the alterations and overhaul intended in the battle-ship "Agincourt"; whether the machinery is to be converted into that of triple or quadruple, and what he

  1459
  anticipates will be her coal endurance and speed, when completed; whether intended to be fitted with breech-loading, and quick-firing, and other modern guns; and will he also state the cost of the proposed conversion?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is intended to fit the "Agincourt" with new boilers, which are in store and available, and to limit repairs in other respects to the work necessary to bring the ship into a condition of efficiency for active service. New machinery will not be supplied. No change of armament is proposed except the introduction of some small quick-firing guns. These repairs are estimated to cost about £35,000.

  THE RAILWAY "BLOCK" SYSTEM.
  MR. GEORGE DIXON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, although by the Act of 1889 Railway Companies were compelled to provide their lines with the absolute block system, the special block signal of thirteen rings known as the "Come at Caution" arrangement, which was sanctioned by the Board of Trade for special purposes only, is now constantly in use for the ordinary traffic; whether the recent serious collisions at Birmingham and Leeds were owing to the use of this dangerous signal; and if it is under the consideration of the Department whether something can be done to carry out more strictly the intention of the Act of 1889?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): (No, Sir, the facts are not quite as stated in the question of the hon. Member. The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, does not require Railway Companies to provide their lines with the absolute block system. What it does do is to empower the Board of Trade to order a Railway Company to adopt, inter alia, the block system with any exceptions or modifications allowed by the Order, and the Board of Trade have required the Railway Companies to adopt the block system with such modifications, in each particular case, as the circumstances of the railway required. The signal referred to by the hon. Member is probably the signal, "section clear, but
  1460
  station (or junction) blocked," which is not a signal sanctioned in any way by the Board of Trade, or forming in any way a modification of the Order to adopt the block system. It is a signal adopted by certain Railway Companies for use under certain special circumstances, but it is frequently used in a manner against which the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade have on several occasions protested. Whether or not the recent unhappy collisions which have led to lamentable loss of life were due to the use of this signal I am unable to say until I have received the Reports of the Inspecting Officers on the inquiries which have been ordered. I am of opinion, however, that the signal as it is sometimes used is by no means satisfactory, and that, in the interests of the public safety, a greater strictness should be adopted than is possible with such use of the signal. The Reports of the Inspecting Officers on the accidents which have occurred will be carefully examined, and the Railway Department of the Board of Trade will consider whether any, and if so, what, further representations shall be made to the Companies which are still using the signal referred to.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under the powers of the Act of 1889, he has power to issue an Order to exclude the use of this signal in the manner referred to, or whether he can only make a recommendation?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I think that is a question of which I should have notice.

  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF AND THE BUCHAREST LEGATION.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs out of what fund and on what authority the additional £ 1,000 was paid to Sir H. Drummond Wolff when acting as Minister in Roumania, when Parliament had already voted the usual salary appropriated to that appointment; and whether it is competent to the Secretary of State to increase the salaries or emoluments of such officers without the vote of Parliament? In putting this question I may be permitted to say in explanation that on the 31st July last a question

  1461
  was raised as to the salary of Sir H. Drummond Wolff, and the then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said it would be necessary to submit a Supplementary Estimate, to which I gave notice of opposition.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The allowance to Sir H. D. Wolff was granted with the sanction of the Treasury, and was charged to the subhead "Salaries" of the Diplomatic Vote. As was explained by the Postmaster General on 1st August, 1891, it was unnecessary to ask for a Supplementary Vote, owing to there being an excess under another head. As the allowance had ceased before this year's Estimates were prepared, the charge does not appear in them. It will appear in the Appropriation Accounts for 1891–2.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: On the 31st duly the then Under Secretary informed the House that it would be necessary to take a Supplementary Estimate.
  *MR. LOWTHER: Yes; but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Report for 1st August he will find the statement to which I have referred.

  IRISH LEASEHOLDERS AND THE EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  COLONEL NOLAN(for Mr. CLANCY,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, inasmuch as a considerable proportion of leaseholders in Ireland have not yet sent in applications to have fair rents fixed on their holdings, he will include in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of the present Session, and so continue for another year, the provision in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, which relates to the time within which such applications may be made?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, the provision in the Act is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

  UNIFORM OF THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended shortly to dress the men of the Royal Naval Reserve in a woollen jersey instead of in a serge frock or jumper; whether he is aware that a good jersey cannot be
  1462
  obtained for the price proposed to be given for this one, so that the jersey proposed to be issued must necessarily be of an inferior kind; if he is aware that a jersey uniform is looked upon by a man-of-war's man as being characteristic of the ordinary crew of a merchant ship leaving port or of the "longshore boatman," and therefore not fit for men of the Royal Navy or Royal Naval Reserve; whether he is aware that a seaman's uniform has been designed, consisting of blue frock and collar, trousers, neck handkerchief, wide collar, lanyard, cap and ribbon, which would be highly popular with the men of the Royal Naval Reserve, and which can be served out to the men of that force at a cost which will save the Admiralty by its issue £1,625 a year; and whether, in view of the fact that this suggested jersey uniform will place the men of the Royal Naval Reserve at a disadvantage in appearance with their comrades of the Royal Navy when serving on board Her Majesty's ships of war, he will consider the advisability of forthwith issuing this blue serge frock uniform to the men of the Royal Naval Reserve instead of the proposed jersey uniform, with a view to add to the popularity among them of that important branch of the Royal Navy?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The uniform which has been finally approved for the Royal Naval Reserve consists of one blue jumper (serge), two flannels, two collars, one black silk handkerchief, one pair blue tartan trousers, one cap and ribbon. Until arrangements have been made for supplying this uniform, the present uniform will continue to be issued. It is not intended to supply the so-called jersey uniform. The cost of the approved new uniform will be about 2s. 8d. per man more than the present uniform in use.

  SALARIES OF PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. EDWARD KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the system of payment of warders of prisons, if it is the case that the principal warders of Borstal Prison, commencing under the new scale, will lose £8 on the first six years' service; and, if so, why this reduction has been

  1463
  made; on what grounds assistant warders of over ten years' service, when promoted, get no immediate increase of pay, whereas they would get an increase if under ten years' service; is it the case that warders are sometimes on night duty, and in the open air, for more than twelve hours without a break, and that the civil guard, in addition to the twelve hours a day, have to be on night guard once in nine or ten days, and that, by reason of this extra duty, men are frequently deprived of the usual half-holiday on Saturday; will the three days' extra leave be granted to the civil guard, as well as to the rest of the staff at Borstal; and if there is any reason for the scale of pension being so low as one-sixtieth instead of one-fiftieth of the annual pay for each year served, and for there being no limit of service at which the staff would be entitled to a pension?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is the fact that under the old practice a warder, at his maximum of £87, on promotion to the post of principal warder commenced at the minimum scale of that rank, which was £83, but to which were added the increments earned in the lower rank, namely, £14, making his initial salary as principal warder £97. Under the new scale a warder, on promotion to the rank of principal warder, commences at the minimum pay of £93, but rises by £2 to a maximum of £105, in lieu of his former maximum of £103. The Treasury decided that the practice of carrying over increments must cease; and the new scale was devised to compensate these deserving officers as far as possible for this loss. Assistant warders who have served ten years receive an increment for the next three years of service. This increment brings their pay above the minimum of a warder's salary; and on promotion they carry with them the higher pay they are then receiving, but receive no increase until they have served a year as warders. Warders are never on night duty in the open air for twelve hours without a break. Each officer on night duty gets a rest of about three hours during the night, and is exempted from day duty. The hours of actual duty of the civil guard average about nine per day, in addition to which he takes his turn of sleeping in the prison as a reserve guard, but is not called up except in case of emergency. Prison officers are not
  1464
  deprived of the Saturday half-holiday, save under exceptional circumstances. The Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of these officers did not recommend additional leave, and it has not been granted; nor did they recommend any change in the rate of superannuation.

  THE VACCINATION LAWS.
  MR. ADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any Circular on the subject of repeated prosecutions in cases of a breach of the Vaccination Laws has been issued by the Local Government Board; and, if so, whether he could state to the House the purport of the Circular?
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board, in September, 1875, addressed a letter on the subject of repeated prosecutions in cases of a breach of the Vaccination Laws to the Guardians of the Evesham Union. I have in a large number of cases forwarded a copy of this letter to Boards of Guardians. In that letter the Board stated that it was the intention of the Article in their Regulations with reference to proceedings under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, being repeatedly taken in the same case, that the Guardians should carefully consider with regard to each individual case the effect which a continuance of proceedings was likely to have in procuring the vaccination of the child and in insuring the observance of the law in the Union generally. The Board stated that when in a particular case repeated prosecutions had failed in their object, it became necessary carefully to consider the question whether the continuance of a fruitless contest with the parent might not have a tendency to produce mischievous results by exciting sympathy with the person prosecuted, and thus creating a more extended opposition to the law. In this view I entirely concur.
  MR. ADDISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any answer from any Board of Guardians promising compliance with this very reasonable request?
  *MR. RITCHIE: It was not a communication requiring an answer; it was merely an intimation to be received.

  RETIRED NAVAL PAY AND CIVIL PENSIONS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the fact that the Treasury have refused to award a full Civil Service pension to Dr. Blaxall, R.N., late Medical Inspector under the Local Government Board, on his retirement after twenty-one and a half years' service, although the Local Government Board specially recommended him for the maximum allowance, on the ground that his retired naval pay must be taken into account when arranging for his retirement on two-thirds of his salary, whether it is on record that the Law Officers of the Crown in 1872, on a case referred to them,
  "Gave it as their distinct opinion that there is a valid distinction between naval half-pay and retired pay, and that officers in receipt of retired pay are not subject to the restrictions relating to half-pay";
  and whether, in view of subsequent decisions, the above opinion having been invariably followed in the case of naval officers on retired pay entitled to Civil Service pensions, the Treasury will reconsider their decision as affecting Dr. Blaxall, and grant him the pension as recommended by the Local Government Board?
  *SIR JOHN GORST: Dr. Blaxall has been treated, in the award of his pension, exactly in the same way as every other Civil servant who is entitled to retired pay in respect of previous service in the Army or Navy. He has been granted so much Civil pension as, together with his retired pay, equals two-thirds of his Civil salary. Such a limitation is, I believe, within the intention of the Superannuation Acts, and it is made in all cases in virtue of the full and final discretion given by those Acts to the Treasury. The advice of the Law Officers of the Crown to Public Departments is confidential, and I cannot therefore reply to that portion of the question which refers to an opinion stated to have been given by the Law Officers in 1872.

  LICHFIELD BENCH OF MAGISTRATES.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  1466
  whether he is aware that on 30th December, 1890, the. Justices' Clerk of the City and County of the City of Lichfield called the attention of the Lichfield Town Council to the existence of seven vacancies on the Bench of Magistrates, and suggested the expediency of adding the names of qualified gentlemen on the Commission of the Peace; whether he is aware that a Memorial was thereupon presented by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City and County of the City of Lichfield to the Lord Chancellor, recommending the names of seven citizens to fill the existing vacancies; if he will explain why for sixteen months no notice was taken of this Memorial, when a commission was returned to the city containing the name of only one of the seven gentlemen recommended by the Memorialists; whether he is aware that the action of the Lord Chancellor in this matter has caused great dissatisfaction in the City of Lichfield; and whether he can state what steps, if any, are to be taken to give effect to the wishes of the Memorialists?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that about the time stated his attention was called to the state of the Bench at Lichfield. His Lordship, in discharge of the responsibility which rests entirely upon him in this matter, after careful inquiry and consideration, came to the conclusion that an addition of three Justices was sufficient for the requirements of the case.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, did the Lord Chancellor receive another Memorial, not from the Town Council?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: There is a general impression that a counter-Memorial was sent.

  SUPERVISORS OF INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer will he explain on what grounds expectant supervisors of Inland Revenue receive only £240 per year salary, while the senior first-class officers supervised by them will this year attain a salary of £250; and whether, in view of the facts that expectant supervisors and expectant inspectors are the only classes not in receipt of annual incre-

  1467
  ments, although some years must be spent in the grades, that, notwithstanding some recent concessions, there are districts wherein expectant supervisors receive only £50 a year for officiating, though having to live away from their homes they cannot maintain themselves properly on so small an allowance; and that expectant supervisors form but a small body (fifty), their case will be included amongst the minor questions affecting Inland Revenue officials now under consideration, with a view to granting an adequate officiating allowance and to the removal of the anomaly of paying a supervising official a lower salary than that received by one he may supervise, as prayed for inter alia in the general Petition presented last year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The fact stated in the first paragraph is correct; but expectant supervisors are really officers of the first class acting from time to time as supervisors, and when promoted to be expectant supervisors they receive an immediate increase of about £40 a year more than they were receiving or were entitled to receive according to their standing as first-class officers. Annual increments are not continuous throughout the service in any of the classes. The position of expectant supervisor is a transitional or temporary one, occupied for about three years only. Expectant supervisors receive £50 a year for cost of lodging and extra cost of living away from home. This is considered sufficient when the circumstance is taken into account that they also receive, when officiating, on an average of all districts, more than £20 a year in addition, for cost of living when absent from their lodging during the day. Concessions have recently been made to the expectant supervisors, and notwithstanding the alleged grievances the number of applicants for the position is embarrassingly in excess of the requirements of the Department.

  NEW FOREST RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what action he contemplates taking in regard to the Report of the Commission upon the contemplated site of a rifle range in the New Forest?
  MR. BRODRICK: I said a few days ago that, having regard to the Report of the Commission and the difficulties indicated, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to proceed further with legislation. Proceedings will be by Provisional Order in a future Session.

  THE CASE OF THE BOY REAY.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a boy named Frederick Reay, who was committed to an industrial school at West Hartlepool on the 2nd March, 1892, on the ground of continual absence from school; whether it has since been medically certified that the boy's eyesight was so defective that he could not see marks or diagrams on a blackboard, and that it was on this account that he absented himself; whether he is aware that it has been stated by the two magistrates who committed him that, if they had known the circumstances which have since transpired, he would not have been committed; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct his discharge from the industrial school, and allow him to be returned to his parents, who are willing to undertake his proper education?
  MR. MATTHEWS: This case has been under consideration, and I have directed the boy to be discharged.

  COAL FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. BAIRD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the difference of price between Scotch and Welsh steam coal in the Clyde and Forth amounts to between five and seven shillings per ton in favour of the former; and whether, as the best Scotch steam coal is fairly free from smoke, and perfectly suitable for cruising, he will, if Her Majesty's Fleet visits the coast of Scotland this year, order the ships to coal there, and give the Scotch coal a full and effective trial?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Welsh coal supplied in the Clyde and Forth is more expensive than Scotch coal, but this additional expense is assured to be more than balanced by the advantages derived from the use of Welsh steam coal. The long and care-

  1469
  ful trials made in 1889 fully demonstrated the superiority of Welsh coal for steaming purposes, and no further trial is likely to reverse that conclusion.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, as the result of tests made about the year 1866, it was decided that one-third Welsh and two-thirds North Country or Scotch steam coal was the best for uniform as well as rapid combustion, and that a Minute was then issued to that effect, which was acted upon for some years; and whether he can state when and for what reasons the change was made?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: A certain mixture of Welsh and North Country coal—but not in the proportions stated in the question—was ordered, in 1869, to be used on board Her Majesty's ships, but the use of this fuel was found to be so unsatisfactory, and met with such general condemnation in the Service, that, in the year 1887, it was definitely decided that North Country coal should be no longer supplied for steaming purposes in the Navy. The reasons for the disuse of the North Country coal were fully explained by me in 1889 to a deputation of Members of this House and representatives of the North Country mining industry.

  COUNTY CESS RECEIPTS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the cess collectors in Cavan have, by direction of the Grand Jury, refused or omitted to give separate receipts for county cess under the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, half of which is recoverable from the landlord, or in any way to separate the amounts levied under that Act from the ordinary cess; whether £4,000 repayable by the landlords has ever been repaid by them owing to this practice; and whether he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of this abuse?
  MR. JACKSON: The subject-matter of this question does not come within the cognizance of the Executive Government. I, however, caused a copy of this question to be forwarded to the Secretary to the Grand Jury for any observations they might desire to offer. No reply has so far reached me.

  THE REGISTRAR OF BELFAST COUNTY COURT.
  MR. KNOX (for Dr. TANNER): I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the attention of the authorities has been directed to the inconvenience occasioned by the late attendance of Mr. H. M'Neill M'Cormick, Registrar of the Belfast County Court; is he aware that Mr. M'Cormick is nearly always late in his attendance at Court, occasionally many hours late, and that on Thursday, 14th April last, when he should have attended at 11.30, he did not come until 5 p.m., to the great discontent of counsel and clients; and whether steps will be taken to remedy this inconvenience?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): No information has reached me on the subject of the question, nor am I aware of any complaints having been made in regard to it. The matter is not one in which I have any right to interpose or any right to inquire.

  THE DISSOLUTION.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think it is anticipated from conversation which passed on a previous occasion, and I think the House will be anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord is now in a position to make a final announcement as to the measures to be proceeded with, and also if he will give us some definite statement as to the day for the Dissolution of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Everybody, I think, will admit that the request of the right hon. Gentleman is a very reasonable one. As I understand the position of Public Business it is this: There still remain on the Paper seventeen Orders of the Day. I understand from my right hon. Friend that No. 13—Public Authorities Protection Bill—is not one which the Irish Government desire to see pressed, and I propose, therefore, to omit that. The remaining Orders of the Day can probably be passed into law without any serious delay; and, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, I see no reason why we should not get through all the measures we have on the Paper by Wednesday next, unless, indeed, we pro-

  1471
  ceed with the British Columbia Bill, which, being a Money Bill, requires a separate day for each one of its stages, and which could not, therefore, be passed before Thursday. With that exception we can, I believe, get through all the business on the Paper by Wednesday. Nor is that general view of our prospects at all modified by the fact that I find there are four Government Bills coming down from another place, of which the following are the titles: Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, Colonial Stock Act, 1877, Amendment Bill, Forged Transfer Bill, and the Bills of Sale Act Amendment Bill. With regard to the Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, I have on more than one occasion pointed out to the House that this was a measure which I was led to understand has excited great interest in Scotland; but I do not believe it is likely to be opposed, as it is not of a controversial character. I hope that is still the view of the House, and that there will be no difficulty in passing that Bill into law before Wednesday. The Colonial Stock Act, 1877, Amendment Bill is a Bill dealing with a very small subject; it is only intended to rectify certain wrong or informal entries with regard to certain Colonial Stock in this country. The Forged Transfer Bill and the Bills of Sale Bill are Legal Bills, more or less important, which could pass if they were generally assented to; but which, of course, the Government could not and would not attempt to force down the throats even of a small minority if they were objected to. So much for the business that we have to get through in this House, and I may say, in passing, I think we owe a great deal to the efforts of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have enabled us to transact so rapidly and so successfully a very large mass of important Public Business. The Session, however, cannot be brought to a close until the business of the other House is also brought to a termination, and, therefore, I see no prospect of being able to conclude our work at so early a date. We have sent up a very large number of very important Bills; and, so far I have been able to understand the procedure in another place, there is no probability, or even possibility, of these Public Bills being dealt with before the end of the week. There is, indeed, a further, and in some respects a more insuperable, difficulty in concluding the
  1472
  business of the Session arising out of certain very important Provisional Orders, which, as I am informed, must lie on the Table for a certain length of time—seven days—in order to give private interests which may be affected power to appeal. That time cannot be shortened without violating all the tenets of public equity, which both Houses have invariably observed; even if the Standing Orders of the House of Lords were suspended with regard to these Provisional Orders it would not, as I understand, be possible to get them through before the end of the week, and a very great deal of hardship would be inflicted on the various localities concerned, for if they were not passed these localities could not obtain the water supplies, and other matters with which the Orders deal, until another year has-elapsed. Under these circumstances, I should propose that we should adjourn House on Wednesday. Monday must be kept open in case we have to-deal with Lords' Amendments, and I should propose, as soon after that as possible, the Dissolution should take place: it cannot possibly be later than Wednesday or Thursday in next week.
  MR. PICTON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to insist on passing Order No. 17, the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill? He said he was unwilling to press a certain Bill down the throats of even a small minority. Does he regard this as a Bill that ought to be pressed down the throats of a small minority?

MOTIONS.
  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

    DATE OF PROROGATION.
    Mr. LABOUCHERE,Mr. LABOUCHERE, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the general inconvenience to the Country of the lengthened period likely to elapse before the Prorogation of Parliament"; and the pleasure of the House having been signified:—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: My observations must be very brief, because I have already almost lost my voice owing to this Prorogation being put off. I do not think that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury was very satisfactory to Members on either side of the House. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman admits that we have done our best to facilitate the conduct of business. We have done that, and we are told that, so far as this House is concerned, the Prorogation could take place next Wednesday or Thursday; but, owing to the action of the House of Lords, this turmoil and disquietude, which is incident to elections, is to be continued for a further week or two. I may also point out that our great object on this side of the House is to cheapen elections as much as possible, and that every day after a contest has commenced there is a certain cost to candidates. Therefore, candidates unite with electors in wishing that, as soon as practically it is announced that the Dissolution is to take place, the Dissolution should take place. Now, what are we told the Lords are going to do? The Lords are going, calmly and quietly, absolutely ignoring the feeling of this House and of the country, to treat their business as if time were no object. We are anxious to give the Lords an opportunity of looking into Bills. We sent up the Agricultural Holdings Bill after much discussion in Committee, in order to give the Lords an opportunity of discussing it. They did not do so. We met again on Thursday. The Lords did not meet on Thursday. They wanted to have a longer holiday. On Monday they carried the Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. Naturally, we expected that they would have put the Bill down for Committee on Tuesday or on Wednesday. I do not say for a moment that it was due to Ascot races going on; but, as a matter of fact, a good many noble Lords did go to Ascot, and the Bill was put off until to-day. Therefore, we have a right to complain of the action of the House of Lords, and I move the Adjournment of the House, because I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use the great influence he has with the other House in order to induce them to facilitate business by sending down their Bills to enable us to pass them before
    1474
    the end of next week. And I move the Adjournment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making a further statement, and to give Gentlemen on this side of the House an opportunity of strengthening the arguments, or the suggestions, that I have used by many of the cogent reasons which, no doubt, will occur to them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: At last we have had avowed the plan which has obviously been under consideration for a longtime. We have been asked upon this sale of the House to facilitate the public business of the country and of the Government; we have agreed to and supported that request; we have carried out our part faithfully and well. But all the time the Government had in reserve, as an instrument of obstruction, the House of Lords; and while we were asked to pass Bills with very little discussion in this House, the Prorogation of Parliament is to be delayed by the action of the House of Lords at the instigation of the Government. And what is the object? The object is to prevent a large number of electors of this country recording their votes, especially the poorer members of the community. When the London Council elections took place a few months ago, in the Tory organs it was stated that the success of the Liberal Party had been due to the elections taking place on a Saturday. It was, therefore, determined that a day should be fixed for the Dissolution which should make it impossible that a poll should be taken in the boroughs of this country upon a Saturday; and the proof of it is that such a day has been selected. There are only two days that you can select which would make it impossible under any circumstances for a poll to be taken upon a Saturday, and these are the two days of the week named by the First Lord of the Treasury—namely, Wednesday and Thursday. If you took any other day the poll might take place upon a Saturday. These are the two days which make it impossible, and it is perfectly well known that preventing the poll on a Saturday is preventing many hundreds and thousands of men from

    1475
    recording their votes. I can speak of my own constituency. When I was there the other day I asked what is the day upon which the largest number of votes can be polled. There is a large number of working men in the railway works there, and a great many of these in the employment of the Midland Railway are absent during the whole week. They only return to their homes upon the Saturday, and they go away on the Monday morning. Hundreds of these men will be disfranchised by Her Majesty's Government using the House of Lords for the purpose of taking away the votes of the working men of this country. You think you will gain by this trickery. In my opinion, you will lose by it. The resentment and the indignation which will be raised by this contrivance throughout the country will, in my opinion, rally against you many thousand more votes than you will gain by this design. Now, if you had issued the Writs on Saturday next it would not have compelled the polling to have been taken upon a Saturday. Nobody has ever asked that; nobody has ever wished that. All that we ask is that there should be an opportunity given that, in the places where it is most convenient, in the places where it would admit of a larger number of men voting than would otherwise do so, the poll should be taken on a Saturday; and if you had issued the Writs next Saturday, as you could do, and as you know you could do, and as I will prove you could do, and, according to all former practices you would have done, what would have been the days? The earliest day would have been the Friday following. The Saturday would have been open, the Monday, and the Tuesday. These would have been the four days upon which the poll could be taken; yet you have selected the day which you knew must exclude Saturday. And upon what pretence? Let anybody who has any experience or knowledge of the conduct of public business ask whether, with the Bills sent up at the close of a Session, it has been the practice of the Lords in former days to demand a long time for their consideration. Why, we know how they have swallowed them whole rather than sit for half-an-hour. What has been the history of the past week? There has been a Bill which they consider, I suppose, of great cones-
    1476
    quence—the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill. That Bill was passed by the House of Commons before Whitsuntide. What has the House of Lords been doing since Whitsuntide—this Assembly, which requires so much time to consider all these measures carefully—what has it been doing since Whitsuntide with the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill? Their Lordships met together upon the Monday, and the Government announced that it intends to strike out of the Bill, I was going to say almost the only liberal provision, which they accepted under the pressure of both sides of this House. That is all they have been doing all this week. Why has the House of Lords not been sitting to consider Bills during the present week? Why, because they were meant to spend next week or the next ten days upon those measures which have been referred to them! Now, as to the Bills which we have sent up, I undertake to say that, according to the practice of Parliament in former days, the House of Lords would not have required a week or ten days to dispose of them. We all know perfectly well that they would have been disposed of in a couple of days, according to the practice of the House of Lords in former Parliaments. The Money Bills, of course, could be disposed of in one day, as they suspend the Standing Orders; and as to the rest of the Bills, which we have disposed of in two days, will anybody say that the House of Lords could not dispose of them in two days, if we could do so, after we have sent them up from this House? I think the nature of this delay, and the object of this delay, will become apparent. I cannot think that it has been a very prudent course on behalf of the Government to employ the House of Lords for such a purpose as this. I think it will be thoroughly understood throughout the country. (Cheers.) Yes; we will take care that it is thoroughly understood; we will make it understood to every one of those men whom you do not intend to poll on Saturday, and whom you will have deprived of the franchise, what is the object of this performance; and we will let them also understand that upon the great issue that is put before the country you have arranged your proceedings so that by the action of the House of Lords you may, as

    1477
    far as possible, disfranchise the working men in the constituencies.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The attack of the right hon. Gentleman, both upon the House of Lords and upon the Government, appears to me to be one of the most extraordinary and one of the most unfounded that even it has been given to him, in his considerable Parliamentary experience of such attacks, to make in this House. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think, when I stated that that House would probably require next week to consider the measures that we have sent up to them, that I was indicating that the House of Lords were asking the greatest possible amount of time they could to consider the legislation which they are expected to pass. Has the right hon. Gentleman thought what that legislation is—of its amount, or of its quality? He talks as though it was the practice of the House of Lords at the end of the Session to deal with Bills of the kind they will have to deal with next week in a day, or two days. He expects, because the right hon. Gentleman happens, in the borough of Derby, to wish an election on the Saturday, that therefore the House of Lords are to suspend all their Standing Orders. I deny that it is the practice of the House of Lords, or that they can be reasonably expected, to suspend their Standing Orders on such Bills, and I deny that they can reasonably be asked to do so.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say that they should suspend their Standing Orders. My statement was that the Bills which have been sent up to the Lords in the last two days could be dealt with by the House of Lords between Monday and Thursday next, and that, without suspending the Standing Orders at all. There is not the least necessity for suspending the Standing Orders.
    MR. BALFOUR: If the House of Lords were to follow their ordinary procedure—and I cannot see why they are not to follow their ordinary procedure —in dealing with Bills, for example, so important and so complicated as that of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) in connection with Irish Education—it is absurd to expect the House of Lords to
    1478
    deal with that Bill before Thursday next. The right hon. Gentleman belongs to that class of politicians which desires to abolish the House of Lords. By all means abolish the House of Lords, if you can. That may be a perfectly legitimate object of public policy; but so long as the House of Lords is an integral portion of our Constitution, in Heaven's name, at all events, allow the House of Lords to fulfil the duties which are entrusted to them by the Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman made no allusion to a matter which I suppose affects him very little—namely, the extreme desirability, if possible, of getting various Provisional Orders through the House of Lords, to which I adverted in the brief statement I made just now. These Provisional Orders cannot by any possibility be hurried. The very briefest time allowed will carry them over next week, and I utterly fail to see why we are to sacrifice, not the House of Lords, or their discussions, but the interest of all the communities in whose behalf, and for whose sake, these Provisional Orders are to be passed, merely in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby may have an election in Derby on a Saturday. There is one other point which has to be borne in mind. I think it is of importance, though not of quite such importance as those to which I have already adverted. There are at this moment before the House of Lords one or two Private Bills in the very first rank of importance. It is possible for us—and, of course, we shall do it—to pass a Resolution by which, even if those Bills are not passed, the money spent in promoting them shall not be wholly wasted. It is not absolutely necessary that the Bills should pass in the course of the present Session; but what is most expedient and most desirable is that the Committee stage of such a Bill as the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway should be got through, and even if the Bill cannot pass into law this Session—which I am afraid is very unlikely—that enormous investigation should not be cut in half before the Committee which is now carrying it on. Now, I do not put that in the first rank of importance; I do not say that the whole business of the country should be made to stand still on account of a Private Bill, however large; but I say

    1479
    that when we are considering what course the House of Lords should pursue in this matter we must not, and cannot, leave out of sight the immense private interests involved in such legislation as that to which I have ventured to advert. If it be admitted—as I think it must be admitted—that the House of Lords are only asking what is reasonable when they demand a week to discuss, I do not know how many, but twenty, thirty, or forty Bills which we have sent up, among which is included a Bill of such immense importance and of so controversial a character as that which has lately been in charge in this House of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I think I have done enough to show the House and the country that we are not asking anything unreasonable for the House of Lords in giving them that length of time to discuss their business. What is the objection to the House of Lords having this very moderate period for debating these Bills? The objection is that if the Dissolution takes places on one of two days next week it will be found difficult, and perhaps impossible, to have the election on a Saturday, and the right hon. Gentleman works himself up into a storm of virtuous indignation over the iniquities of a Government which should so arrange matters that the elections should not be on a Saturday. The first observation I have to make upon that is that the Statutes by which the times of elections are fixed have often been under consideration in this House, and never was it professed that the Dissolution should not take place on certain days because of its operation in connection with a Saturday election. Possibly the point never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) at that time. I do not dwell upon that; but I point to the experience we have actually had in this matter. I am given to understand that in 1885 only two London boroughs polled on Saturday and eight county boroughs; and in 1886 only two London boroughs and thirty-one county elections polled on Saturday. I conclude from that that it is not the view of those in the country who are responsible for these things that Saturday is the best day; and I am bound to say—although I do not profess to have the electioneering experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    1480
    Derby — that such considerations as have been brought before me in this particular would certainly not induce me, if I were a returning officer, to fix an election on Saturday. I must point out certain very large errors of fact in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He asserted that the London County Council elections took place on a Saturday, and that certain Conservative newspapers stated that the success of the Progressive Party was due to the fact that the elections were on a Saturday, and he concludes from that that Saturday is the proper day on which to hold an election. But we must examine the facts more closely before we arrive at such a conclusion. What are the true principles which should determine this House when it deals with matters of this kind? What we desire, and what, I suppose from his speech, the right hon. Gentleman desires, is that the very largest number of people possible should be allowed to go to the poll, without inflicting upon them a pecuniary fine. As far as my observation goes, Saturday is the most disfranchising of all days. Before the extension of the hours of polling to eight o'clock, no doubt it was perfectly true that to have an election on any other day than Saturday disfranchised large and important masses of the working classes. Now that the hours of polling have been extended to eight o'clock, I cannot believe that any disfranchisement of a large kind can operate with regard to the working classes; but if you choose to have your elections on Saturday, you must disfranchise an enormous multitude of smaller tradesmen in the large towns, who are obliged to keep their shops open till late on Saturday night, and who cannot go to the poll without making a distinct, and for them important, pecuniary sacrifice. Therefore, if the returning officers insisted in any case on having the poll on Saturday—though no doubt they would be acting within their right, and I should never criticise their action—still it appears to me that the result of their action would be, not to enfranchise, but to disfranchise, those on whom Parliament has bestowed the privilege of returning Members of Parliament. There is another class, not indeed absolutely disfranchised, but something very like it, by an election on Saturday. The

    1481
    Jews are not a very large section of the population, except in certain constituencies; but in some cases, both in London and the country, they are a very large and very important element in the constituencies, and they are practically disfranchised by any returning officer who insists on having the election on a Saturday. There are other and subsidiary objections on which I do not care to dwell, but I think that many persons must be painfully aware of the fact that an election on a Saturday may often, has often, and may again, produce scenes of drunkenness and disorder. Hon. Gentlemen opposite belong to the teetotal party, but I suppose they will admit that an election is frequently accompanied by scenes of drunkenness and disorder. Another result of having the election on a Saturday is that a vast amount of Sunday labour is thrown on the various classes of the community connected with the working of an election. I do not propose to go into these points, as being comparable in importance with the disfranchising effect of a Saturday election. I only quote them as circumstances which should not be left out of account. I should not have gone into this question of the day of the week on which an election should or should not be held if the right hon. Gentleman had not dragged me into it. I have no objection to the controversy, and I am not afraid of it; but the fact that we cannot finish our business this week has nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with an election on a Saturday. It has to do with the possibility of getting through public business; and I say distinctly—having made the best endeavour I can to discover what the views are of those who are better acquainted than I can be with the business of the House of Lords that it is impossible for that Assembly to deal with the enormous mass of business we have sent up to them before the day I have mentioned. I hope the House will feel that, at all events, the way of hastening the election is not to move the Adjournment of the House, and that, therefore, it will not support the Motion.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should wish, Sir, to endeavour to brush one or two cobwebs out of the way, as a preliminary operation. Referring to what was stated
    1482
    by my right hon. Friend, and what I believe is an indisputable fact, as to the great reason alleged by the Conservative newspapers of London for the success of the Progressive Party on a recent occasion—namely, that it was because the election was held on a Saturday—we now see how much weight Her Majesty's Government assign to reasons alleged in Conservative newspapers. It could have had nothing whatever to do with the success of the Progressive Party.
    MR. BALFOUR: It is disfranchisement.
    MR. GLADSTONE: So that the success of the Progressive Party tended rather to disfranchisement in the view of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman said—it was a piece of Parliamentary fencing—that the question we were discussing was whether the election of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) should or should not be held on a Saturday, that it was convenient to my right hon. Friend that that day should be chosen, and consequently he had made this extraordinary attack on the Government. Now, Sir, my opinion of my right hon. Friend's position at Derby is this—that it does not signify one pin to him on what day of the week the election may take place; that Her Majesty's Government may fix it, if they please, on such day as they shall select, and at such hour of the day as they shall select, and my right hon. Friend would be entirely unapproachable by any one of them, or by the whole of them, in the confidence of the constituency of Derby. Then there are two subjects in the main which have been raised before us, and the first is as to the House of Lords. It appears—to my observation and memory for the first time—that the House of Lords is in the habit of giving such cheerful and careful attention to the Bills that go to the House of Lords from this House, that it is quite impossible for them to get through the business in less than the whole of next week—closing, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, with the Monday of the next week. It is quite impossible for them to do the business in less than that time. Now, what we have been accustomed to see is this—that the Bills that have occupied this House for months are

    1483
    disposed of in the House of Lords in days. The House of Lords has not been exhausted by its recent labours. The work of the House of Lords during the present week has not been of an overpowering character. My right hon. Friend has pointed out—and I entirely support what he says—that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week are available, compatibly with a Dissolution next week, for the despatch of its business. It will be curious to watch the hours on those days of next week during which the House of Lords—in that self-sacrificing way which always distinguishes it—shall devote itself to the consideration of these measures. Of course, I take it for granted, from what the right hon. Gentleman says, that it is the intention of the House of Lords on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, to meet at three or four o'clock, or whatever the time may be, and to sit steadily until twelve o'clock for the consideration of these Bills. Manifestly this is the first demand we are entitled to make upon them. Will they do it? No, Sir, nothing of the sort; it cannot be done. They may request a few Peers to speak; they may put the Whips in motion for the purpose of getting up what may be called bogus Debates; but I defy them, with all their efforts, to make a show of business which shall occupy them even the time my right hon. Friend has pointed out as amply sufficient for the discharge of this business. No, Sir; my recollection of the House of Lords is this: that during all the years of my Parliamentary remembrance—and Heaven knows there are quite enough of them—there has not been a single occasion on which the House of Lords has been set up to create a difficulty until the occasion has now arisen. The House of Lords is the most accommodating, is the most elastic, and is the most squeezable body, so far as procedure is concerned, that has ever discharged legislative functions. I will not say that I denounce, but I must protest against the whole attempt of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to set up these necessities of the House of Lords to have prolonged and repeated Sittings for the purpose of discharging business which we know to be perfectly capable of being gone
    1484
    through during the time pointed out. It is one of the idlest and thinnest fictions that has ever been set up for the purpose of entrapping an unwary Parliament and an unwary public—if such a public there were in this country, and I suspect there is not. We know very well that when we are talking of the House of Lords we are talking of the Government. ("No, no!") That is our humble and respectful opinion. Oh, I know there are certain points on which the House of Lords will rebel on certain occasions; but those are isolated cases—when the House of Lords is touched in a tender place—when unquestionably it will, if galled, wince and make even the Government, with whom they fully agree, feel the effect of their wincing; but for all ordinary purposes, for the discharge of business, the House of Lords, if not under the control of the Government, gives a willing, a ready, a loyal, and universal assent to the proposals of the Government. Consequently, we perfectly understand that it is the right hon. Gentleman who, with a certain limited amount of aid from the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Bill, has set up this remarkable defence for the postponement of the Dissolution. Then we come to the question of the effect of disfranchisement produced by the choice of one day or the other; and here the right hon. Gentleman set up the case that Saturday was a disfranchising day. Why is it a disfranchising day? It is a disfranchising day for two reasons. The Jews—that most worthy and excellent body of men—have been paraded before us as a reason why there should be no election on a Saturday, the fact being that in forty-nine out of fifty constituencies in the country there is not a single Jew in the constituency. But the right hon. Gentleman says there are constituencies where there are large fractions of Jews. Very well, Sir, and if there are such constituencies, let the returning officers take that into consideration. We do not ask to have the elections fixed on a Saturday, but we ask that it should be left open to the returning officer to fix the election for a Saturday. So I think I have disposed of the Jews. Then there is the case of the small tradesmen. What is to become of them? If you have an election on a

    1485
    Saturday no small tradesman can vote without inflicting on his business a fearful loss, and putting him, perhaps, in danger of the Gazette. Why cannot a small tradesman vote, as I believe he always does, in the daytime? He is not dependent on the extension of the poll to eight o'clock, as the workman is. The small tradesman's pressure of business does not commence at those hours when the poll commences. Therefore the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that there will not be a single small tradesman or a single big tradesman throughout the country disfranchised. But the right hon. Gentleman has formed the opinion that Saturday is an inconvenient day altogether; and I must say that we are so far indebted to the right hon. Gentleman that he laid down a sound principle, and said we ought to have the day which is the least disfranchising. The answer is that it ought to be, at the very least, left open to the returning officer; we ought not to preclude him from the exercise of his discretion, and have the election on Saturday if he so thinks fit. Who are the persons mainly interested? I think I have given him a fair answer for the Jews—let them be considered by the returning officer. I think, too, I have given him a fair answer for the small tradesmen—they have the whole forenoon and afternoon at their disposal. But what are we to say for the working men of this country? The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, will be inclined to admit that the working men of this country are at all events entitled to have an opinion, and that they might entertain an opinion entitled to much attention on the question of which is the best day for the election. The working men of this country form the large majority of the constituents. Our contention is that in the boroughs the Saturday is by far the best day, the day of least disfranchisement—the only day for perfectly free voting; and consequently, the working men being the most numerous class in this country, the day on which the nation can most freely and adequately exercise the suffrage. The right hon. Gentleman has had some evidence put before him on this subject. I had an opportunity yesterday of receiving a deputation of working men, who, undoubtedly, whether they represented the whole working class of the
    1486
    country or not, are representative to a very large extent—unquestionably representative—of the Metropolis; and undoubtedly this question is more important in the Metropolis than anywhere else. What, Sir, is their view? They informed me that they had presented to the right hon. Gentleman spontaneously—not any influence from above, and not as the result of any political machinations, but spontaneously—a. Memorial setting forth on their behalf that Saturday is the lay on which they can most easily and freely vote; that if Saturday be not appointed in many cases a considerable disfranchisement of their class will take place, and that consequently there ought to be a free discretion to fix the election on Saturday. I think that is a moderate contention, and I cannot help stating that, in my opinion, Her Majesty's Government have been very ill-advised in taking a course—a course which they might have avoided—which will prevent what the working classes themselves believe to be the best means of allowing them fully and adequately to exercise the suffrage. The construction placed upon the matter would undoubtedly be that whatever the profession of the right hon. Gentleman may be as to the propriety of appointing the day of least disfranchisement, his action is not in conformity with that profession, and that he and the Government to which he belongs have deliberately and advisedly adopted an arrangement for the Dissolution of Parliament which, in the opinion of the working men themselves, will make it impossible for them to exercise the franchise in that large and unrestricted manner in which it was the desire of Parliament, and in which it is for the benefit of the country, that it should be exercised.
    MR. JAMES STUART: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is about to take a step which will have the effect of disfranchising the working men of London. There can be no doubt about it. His argument about the small shopkeepers is worth nothing at all. The working men believe that they can vote in larger numbers on Saturday than on any other day. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the experience in past elections. There are very few constituencies in London in which

    1487
    the returning officers are not in the power of the Party opposite, and these returning officers must have been convinced by the experience of the 5th March last that the day on which London could really poll is on a Saturday, and on that day alone. The right hon. Gentleman has got up a case about the House of Lords. He says that there will be delay because the House of Lords cannot dispose of their business in the time. If that is so, the House of Lords is to blame.
    MR. BALFOUR: How can that be, when only to-day this House sent up to the House of Lords a most important Bill?
    MR. STUART: They have a week in which to get through the business. The right hon. Gentleman has shown his whole hand, for his speech was dead against a Saturday being chosen for the election. When answering the question I put to him, he chose to regard it as one asking the Government to declare in favour of a Saturday. We only want to be free to have a Saturday, and that is a very moderate request indeed. The public will be able to judge with regard to it for themselves. There is a marked difference between Saturday and any other day, and we say that the election ought to take place on the day which we are convinced is the most convenient for the masses of the people. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is in favour of better registration laws, but he and his Party have sneered at us for improving registration—they say we are always tinkering with the Constitution. The people of London will now see what tinkering with the Constitution means. Disfranchised as the working men are through the state of the registration laws, the right hon. Gentleman is going to disfranchise them still more by keeping from them any opportunity of voting on a Saturday. There is no obligation on the returning officer to have the election on Saturday in constituencies in which there are great numbers of Jews. I appeal, therefore, from the right hon. Gentleman to the people of London, who will see well enough who it is that is preventing them from exercising their privileges.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to think that enfranchisement simply means the power of voting on the part of those who agree with him in politics. ("No, no!") He pointed to the 5th March as a proof that Saturday was the best day that could possibly be fixed for the election, but what was the result? That scarcely more than one-half of the whole of the constituencies in London were able to vote.
    MR. STUART: Yes, but very many more voted than would have done had it not been a Saturday.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: That day happens to show that there was a very small poll indeed, and the greater portion of that poll was on the side of the hon. Gentleman. A subsequent bye-election showed that the friends of the hon. Member had voted in their full strength on the Saturday. If there was disfranchisement then, where was it? It was of the small shopkeepers, who were not able to vote on a Saturday, but who voted on the other day. No proof has been offered whatever except the Memorial referred to that Saturday is so inconvenient to the working classes as has been suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is no proof whatever, except the desire which they have expressed and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that the railway employees in Derby would not be able to vote except on Saturday. But the curious thing is that in Manchester it is stated that hundreds of voters among the working classes in the employ of the railway would not be able to vote if the elections took place on a Saturday. This matter has been considered by the Manchester Trades Council, and by an overwhelming majority they approved the previous question against using any influence with regard to this matter. And what did they state? One delegate stated that Saturday would not suit thousands of shopkeepers. But hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care apparently to have the small shopkeepers' vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said that we wished to disfranchise the working classes.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What I have done is this: I have only insisted on polling on Saturday where it is convenient. What we say is—poll on Saturday where it is convenient, and where it is inconvenient poll on some other day. What you are doing, however, is to make Saturday polling impossible.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: It is not we ourselves who choose that day; but we say that Saturday is not more an enfranchising day than any other day, and that, on the contrary, it disfranchises a large number in the constituencies. In proof of that, we cite the County Council elections in London. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to give the impression that we want to disfranchise the working classes. While we deny the allegation, we are entitled to say that the hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to avail themselves of a day when they cannot have recorded against them the votes which we believe will, if recorded, defeat them. The hon. Member opposite has said that my right hon. Friend's speech was a speech dead against Saturday polling; but my right hon. Friend was only replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who dragged that particular day into the discussion. It is therefore he who is responsible for raising the question, which is not a question for the House, but for the returning officers, who in many parts of the country consider that Saturday is not a good but a bad day for the election.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There are four days in the week any one of which the returning officer may choose for the holding of the polls; and in making that choice they will consult the interests of the locality and the general local feeling. But what the Government are doing is to make it impossible for Saturday to be one of those four days, and that is the gist of the controversy between us. The right hon. Gentleman says that in some districts Saturday is not a convenient day. I quite agree with him that there are some districts in which Monday is a much more convenient day; but when he says that there is no proof that Saturday is a convenient day, I can assure him that he is entirely in error. A large number of industries would prefer
    1490
    Saturday to any other day; but that not the question for the House to argue now. What we want to argue is that no Government have the right to make any such arrangements as render it impossible for, at all events, a considerable number of localities to hold the poll on the day they prefer, and which, if not selected, would involve their disfranchisement. The whole case is perfectly plain and transparent. The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. A. J. Balfour) argued against Saturday altogether, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) has also argued against Saturday altogether.
    MR. BALFOUR: I do not desire to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but what I argued was that it is quite impossible to finish the Business of the Government before the end of next week; and I pointed out the result might be that the election could not take place on Saturday; and I answered certain arguments against that course.
    MR. FOWLER: But that was not the point which was so rapturously cheered by those behind the right hon. Gentleman. What his Party so rapturously cheered, and especially the London Conservative Members, whom I should like to hear express their views openly and audibly in this House, was the argument against Saturday elections. I think it is desirable that the London Conservative Members should, in the interests of their constituents, present their views on this subject.
    MR. WEBSTER: I have stood up in my place three times, and it is not my fault that I have not been called on.
    MR. FOWLER: We shall be glad to hear the hon. Member when the time arrives. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says that the Public Business cannot be disposed of. I wish he would take the volumes of Hansard for the last three years and read what has been the record of the House of Lords in the last two days of each of the last three Sessions. And I wish he would note the speed with which they can despatch Public Business when the 12th August is looming. Last year on the last day but one of the Session the House of Lords immediately suspended all the Standing Orders relating to every Bill, and they passed them as I may say by shovelsful, and they adjourned at six

    1491
    o'clock, after passing all the Bills the House of Commons had sent them with the greatest rapidity in the last week of the Session. When the last Dissolution took place in 1886, the whole of the House of Lords' Business was completed in two or three days, and always has been at the end of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Irish Educational Bill is to occupy a considerable time in the House of Lords. But what the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon was Private Business and the great injustice that would be inflicted on persons promoting Private Bills. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the Motion which the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) is going to move on Monday. He is going to make a Motion on Monday relative to the standing Orders, which will simply suspend all these Provisional Orders and all these Private Bills, so that nobody would be put to any loss. The extreme amount of delay which will take place will be the thirty-five or forty days between the dissolution of this Parliament and the meeting of the new Parliament. I am sure the country will believe that there is no necessity for the delay on account of business; but the Government are, of course, the musters of the situation, and they can dissolve Parliament on any day they think proper. Let us, however, distinctly mark that there are two days in the week which if taken for the Dissolution will render a Saturday election impossible, and that the Government have deliberately announced that they intend to select one of the two.
    MR. WEBSTER: So far as I am concerned as a London Conservative Member, all I wish is that at the next General Election we may have a large poll and not a County Council poll, which in my constituency was not much over twenty-five per cent. A large number of shopkeepers were to my knowledge disfranchised. I was personally in St. Pancras on that day, and I asked a large number of the shopkeepers to vote for my friends, but they told me that they were unable to leave their business. It is not right or fair that either shopkeepers or any other class of the community should be disfranchised. It appears to me that the working class can vote equally well on any day of the week; but Saturday to the tradesmen in London is practically
    1492
    market day, and they are therefore obliged to be in the shop from two o'clock to eight in the evening. Thus to have the poll on Saturday would virtually disfranchise the tradesman. Look at the last election. The poll was not thirty or forty per cent as in the case of the County Council election, but eighty or eighty-five per cent.; and I find that in Blackburn, where there was the largest poll of all the constituencies—ninety-five per cent. of the voters on the register—the poll was not taken on a Saturday, but was either Tuesday or Wednesday. Therefore it appears to me that the working classes in the towns can, as I have said, vote equally well on any day in the week; while, by having the poll on Saturday, you would virtually disfranchise a large number of the shopkeepers of London.
    MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I have had some experience of elections in London, and I deny that the working classes can go to the poll between the hours of 8 and 8, and I am prepared to prove that a large proportion of electors are disfranchised by the closing of the poll at 8 o'clock. We are told that we are not to have elections on Saturday because of the percentage of voting that took place on 5th March; but are we to be responsible because our friends on the other side could not get their friends to vote for their programme? They brought the Duke of Westminster into London and also the Duke of Norfolk, and then they could not get their people to the poll. That, however, was not our fault. We offered an attractive programme; we won the election, and that programme is the whole secret of our County Council victory. Let me point out that with regard to this polling on 5th March there has been left out of the calculations this fact—that we were able to vote on the system of one man one vote for London. That was one reason why the poll appeared less than it really was. What has been the sort of argument offered? The argument used by the Leader of this House is an insult to the working class of London, and I throw it back to him as contumely upon that class. He said that if we were to have a Saturday election we should have a vast amount of drunkenness. Was there drunkenness on the 5th March? I went through several of the constituencies, and I saw none of that

    1493
    debauchery the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make appear; and I believe this absence is characteristic of the whole of the working class constituencies throughout London. If that drunkenness exists, it must exist among the friends of the right hon. Gentleman, and not among the Radical electors of London. Never, I believe, was a greater insult offered to the working class than is contained in that statement. The class that, unfortunately, gets drunk on Saturday is the class which does not take interest in public affairs. We have been told that the whole question remains with the returning officer, but we know that it does not. Anyone acquainted with the Act knows well that it is distinctly laid down that after the receipt of the Writ certain stages up to the date of the Election are all settled for the returning officer, and must take place within a period of given days. If you have the Dissolution on a day which does not allow Saturday to come within those dates, it will be impossible for the returning officer to choose Saturday. I have reason to believe that a very large number of returning officers in London would, from their past experience, fix Saturday as the day of polling; and when we are told that this might suit the working class, but would not suit another class, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer seek to admit that his Party does not expect to have the working class vote at this Election—that they have lost it? As to the small shopkeepers, I find that they choose the quiet period of the morning between 9 and 11 o'clock for recording their votes. Our wish is not to disfranchise the small shopkeepers. I think this Debate has been of a very interesting character to the working classes, because it has been clearly demonstrated, whatever may be the theory laid down, that the First Lord will not afford the facilities which will allow the vast mass of the working class to go to the poll. Take the question of Saturday from another point. Will any hon. Member say that the day upon which the working classes have most leisure is not the best occasion they could have for voting? Many of them work a long way out, and are prevented by distance from getting back to their homes in time for a poll that closes at 8 o'clock. Especially does that apply where the working men have to take a railway
    1494
    journey. Go to Liverpool Street and see the working men's trains going back at 8 o'clock on an ordinary day. On Saturdays these return about 2, 3, and 4 o'clock, and the passengers are not, as the First Lord said, in a state of drunkenness.
    MR. BALFOUR: What I said was that there was more drunkenness on Saturday than on other days. Is that denied by the hon. Gentleman?
    MR. ROWLANDS: I do not deny that there is more drunkenness on Saturday afternoon; but I say that those who take an interest in public matters do not get drunk on Saturday afternoon in consequence of going to the poll, and thus there is no argument in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think my object has been fulfille Under ordinary circumstances, I should be desirous of dividing the House; but it appears to me that if we were to carry the adjournment, which is very possible, we should furnish the Government with an additioral excuse for the extraordinary course they are pursuing on this occasion. I beg, therefore, to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    MR. PICTON: One reason, apparently, why a longer time is required by the other House for the discharge of Public Business is that the Peers are at present so busily engaged in electioneering. So many of them are taking part in the elections that I do not wonder they cannot attend to their duties. Only the other day I had a message from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb), who at present is in his constituency, stating that there are two noble Lords going about with the Conservative candidate and taking the chair at that candidate's meetings. Therefore, I do not think we need be much moved by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that all next week would be required for the discharge of Business.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There is one matter of Public Business I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement about. Late last night the question of Private Bills was raised, and I hope it may be fully understood now that the right hon. Gentleman will at the conclusion of Public Business move the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I understand that a Motion for the Adjournment of this House will be moved by the First Lord of the Treasury. That will be the proper opportunity for the discussion of this question.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BALFOUR: I think the question which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) asks will be answered by the Motion that I now make: "That, at the conclusion of Government Business this day, this House do adjourn till Monday next."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, at the conclusion of Government Business this day, this House do adjourn till Monday next."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Can it be understood by those who desire to leave London that it should be the rule hereafter, as long as the House sits, that the Motion for Adjournment shall be made at midnight when Government Business is concluded?
    MR. BALFOUR: Yes. I am in accordance with that appeal.
    MR. PICTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the whole of the Government Orders must be carried? Does he include the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill?
    Motion agreed to.

  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.—(No. 406.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. SEXTON: I see this Bill includes the Bank of England. Up to the present moment the House has not had one syllable of explanation with regard to the Bill. I ask for some light on the Bill.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I have already said that we have made an arrangement with the Bank of Ireland similar to that made with the Bank of England. The Bill has been sent over to Ireland, and every opportunity afforded for the study of its details.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reduction of
  1496
  the rate of interest due from the public to those banks, and by what amount the remuneration of these banks is to be altered?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The total amount by which the remuneration to the Bank of Ireland will be diminished, including the diminution in the rate of interest on' the Government Debt, is over £7,500. The interest is reduced by one quarter per cent. on the debt, the amount of which will be found in the Bill. Then there are two items of £600, and this £1,200—one-half of which is in connection with the altered scale of payment to the Bank for managing the Public Debt—and the reduction of the quarter per cent. in the interest on the Debt to the Bank make up the total diminution in the remuneration of the Bank.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the effect of the Bill to lessen the charge upon the public?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir; I stated that the charge upon the public connected with both banks is diminished by a sum between £52,000 and £53,000.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 224.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, considered.
  On Motion of Mr. KIMBER (Wandsworth) the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Clause 9, page 5, line 25, at end, insert "access to which is obtained from the street through a court, passage, or otherwise," and.
  On Motion of Sir ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 19, page 18, line 21, leave out "kerbed."
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 418.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, leave out "1st day of November," and insert "31st day of December."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT(1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 405.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 18, to add the words, "for the purpose of exercising in Ireland the powers conferred by this Act."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to move the following Clause:—
  (Application of Act.)
  "This Bill shall not apply to England or Scotland."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 345.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]
  Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords.]—(No. 397.)
  Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be considered upon Monday next.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MIDWIVES REGISTRATION.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 289.]

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL.—(No. 239.)
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments, and Consequential Amendments, to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 374.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed].
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  TELEGRAPHS (re-committed) BILL. (No. 377.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL. [Lords.]
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 422.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS CONSOLIDATION BILL.—(No. 184.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL. (No. 417.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 262.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  MAURITIUS LOAN BILL.—(No. 425.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA [LOAN].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to advance, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, a loan of £150,000 to the Government and Province of

  1499
  British Columbia for the purpose of transferring and settling in that Province families from Crofter Parishes in Scotland, and to make provision for raising for a limited period the sum necessary for the said loan, the principal moneys so raised and the interest thereon being charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
  Ordered—
  That a Message be sent to the Lords, to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House, a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Metropolitan Hospitals, &c., with the Proceedings of the Committee.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) [REMUNERATION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That is is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of an increase in the remuneration for the management of Treasury Bills, and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Irish Land Commission, of remuneration for the management of Guaranteed Land Stock, in pursuance of an Act of the present Session for making further provision respecting certain payments to the Banks of England and Ireland.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask whether it is due to a blunder on the part of some Government official that the Committee stage of the Banks of England and Ireland (Payments) Bill was placed upon the Order Paper before the Money Resolution relating to the same Bill, because I noticed that, instead of proceeding with the clauses of that Bill when the House went into Committee upon it, a Member of the Government at once moved to report Progress, which was done.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I might point out to the hon. Member that, apart from the question of whether there has been any mistake in putting the Bill upon the Paper as No. 3 and the Money Resolution as No. 5, no progress could be made with the clauses of the Bill until the Money Resolution has been reported. As that cannot be done until
  1500
  Monday, no delay will take place in consequence of the order in which the two stages have been placed upon the Paper.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I wish to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart Wortley) with reference to the Shop Hours Bill. It has been unanimously passed by a Select Committee, who went so far as to pass a Resolution that it was very desirable the Bill should pass. It is a Bill to enable Local Authorities to appoint Inspectors to carry out the provisions of the Act passed in this House two years ago; and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot agree to granting facilities so that the Bill may become law?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The light hon. Baronet is aware that I am not in a position to control the business of the House, but I will convey to the First Lord the facts stated by him. So far as I am aware, the conditions necessary for its being put into the Paper with Government Bills have been met, so far as they could be met on this side of the House.
  *SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: With reference to the Secondary School Teachers' Registration Bill, No. 21 on the Paper, I think those who are interested in it are entitled, in some degree, to protest against the arrangement of the Government whereby that Bill, which has been read a second time, is shut out from the Committee stage. It is a Bill which, although introduced by a private Member, has received a considerable amount of support, being backed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair). It is based on the Report of a Select Committee of this House, and is approved by the Education Department. I submit that, as it has been shut out from the Committee stage to-day, some opportunity should be given for passing it next week. I hope the Government will carefully consider if that cannot be done.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.
The Lord Chamberlain reported. That the Lords with White Staves had (according to order) laid before Her Majesty their Lordships' Resolution of Tuesday last, relating to the place and precedence of His Royal Highness the Duke of York in this House; and that Her Majesty was pleased to say She would give directions for a chair or seat to be prepared for His said Royal Highness on the left hand of the Cloth of Estate.
His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales, having been created Baron Killarney, Earl of Inverness and Duke of York, was introduced between His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, the Gaiter King of Arms, and the Lord Great Chamberlain attending, and was placed in a chair on the left hand of the Throne.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Huntingdon, after the death of his father.
TOWN HOLDINGS.
Report, &c., from the Select Committee of the House of Commons: Communicated (pursuant to message of Monday last), and to be printed. (No. 188.)
METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
Message from the Commons for Third Report, &c., of Select Committee: Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the one hundred and twenty-third volume of the Journals (54th and 55th Vict., 1891), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journals have been delivered.

SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according toorder).
Clause 1.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I suggest that two words should be inserted in line 12 to make it clear that County Councils may hire land. By Clause 2 they are enabled to hire land, but according to Clause 1 they are only allowed to buy. I do not know whether the words I move to insert are necessary.
Amendment moved, page 1, line 12, after ("buy") insert ("or hire").—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, it is quite true that this Bill provides for hiring as well as purchase, but the primary object of the Bill is purchase; that is to say, the object being to increase the number of occupying owners of land, it was not thought necessary to insert the words which my noble Friend proposes, because the main object throughout the whole Bill, as your Lordships will see, is purchase. There is undoubtedly one clause which provides for hire for letting under special circumstances; but for that reason it is not thought desirable at the beginning that the word "hire" should be put in on the same level as the word "purchase."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it seems to me a strange thing indeed that, where a Bill gives power by a subsequent clause to hire, it should not be mentioned in the first clause. I have no doubt it is not essential; but the Bill would be greatly improved, I think, by the introduction of these words, and it cannot alter the meaning of the Bill, because the first clause states the whole object. If the County Council are of opinion that there is a demand, they may buy land for the purpose of providing small holdings, and they may also hire.
EARL CADOGAN: There is no great objection to the words, but it is for the noble Lord to prove that they are necessary. The object of the Bill is, generally speaking, purchase. Undoubtedly, in a subsequent clause we provide

1395
for hiring; but we think misunderstanding might arise if, in the first clause, the words that my noble Friend proposes to insert were added; and I think it is for the noble Earl opposite to show the necessity for them.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think the misunderstanding would be on the other side. It cannot possibly produce misunderstanding to mention hire in the first clause, when you are going to give power to hire afterwards. No doubt the main object of the Bill is to buy; but one of the objects is to hire, and, unless it is intended to strike out afterwards the clauses as to hire, I think it would puzzle any human being to explain why these words should be left out.
EARL CADOGAN: It is not a question whether the word "hire" is to be left out, but whether the word "lure" is to be inserted. It is one of the objects of the Bill undoubtedly; but the primary object is purchase; and, unless the noble Earl can show good cause, I do not see the object of inserting these words.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I venture to think that I have shown exceedingly good cause. Whether it is absolutely necessary from a legal point of view I do not assert; but I say it is highly desirable, and I have heard no reason from the noble Earl to the contrary.
LORD THRING: It is a perfect axiom in drafting that the first clause should state the object of the Bill. Now there are two principal objects of the Bill, and you state one without stating the other. Surely that is misleading.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to differ from the objection taken by noble Lords opposite. I do not think the object of the Bill is to transfer land to the County Council; and surely it is not expedient that the County Council should take the place of the landowner in doing what the landowner can do as well as the County Council, and better. The object of the Bill is to create small proprietors, and, therefore, I think it would be trenching on the principle of the Bill to insert the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I do not think the discussion has applied itself to the real difference between Clause 1, in which this
1396
Amendment is moved, and Clause 2. The provision, in respect of which discussion has arisen, is for providing small holdings for persons desirous of buying, and who will themselves cultivate the holdings. It is true that there are afterwards provisions enabling them under certain circumstances to hire; but those are separate and distinct altogether from the buying; and the hiring spoken of in Clause 2 has reference to hiring by the County Council; whereas the buying spoken of is the buying in Clause 1; and the subject-matter dealt with afterwards, described by the noble Earl as hiring, is only hiring under certain provisions and conditions. Inasmuch as this is a controversy about drafting rather than about substance, I would suggest that the clearer mode is to have each of these cases separately dealt with, as they are separately dealt with in the Bill.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I should like to point out that, except as regards purchase money, all the conditions applying to purchase apply also to hiring by express statement in the Bill later on.
EARL CADOGAN: Not in the matter of limitation. My noble Friend will remember that the cases of hiring are limited to fifteen acres, or the value of £15.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What the noble and learned Lord has said would be true, and I should entirely agree with him, if hiring were limited to Clause 2; but hiring is to take place under Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: That is letting.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think the point is of great importance; I do not think we need waste time upon it; but I do not see why it is objected to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Your Lordships will see, I think, that this question of hiring is to be found in Clause 3, Sub-section 2. The very first mention there is of hiring is that the County Council may do certain things before selling or letting. Up to that point you have never heard of letting at all. For the sake of clearness surely it would be well to put in the words "or hire."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): Does the noble Marquess withdraw his Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF EUNTLY: I think it is harmless to show that the County Council may hire the land. Clearly under Clause 2 they may hire and let it.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think, my Lords, the point is worth considering again, because, if you look at Clause 2, which deals with hiring, it provides that the Council may hire "the land," which I suppose refers to the land dealt with in the earlier section.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): No, the land mentioned in the first line of Clause 2.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am not sure of that.
EARL CADOGAN: It is the land described in the first line.
LORD HERSCHELL: But Clause 1 limits the power of the Council to acquire land for the purpose of providing small holdings for persons who desire to buy; that is the only power given to them; and yet you deal with them in Clause 2 on the assumption that they have got land and are to be allowed to hire it. If Clause 2 is to operate, then ought to be power given to them to acquire land for the purpose of Clause 2, which is hiring and not buying. My Lords, I must call attention to the point a little more minutely. If Clause 1 is looked at it gives the County Council power to acquire. There is no power to acquire in Clause 2 at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is "subject to the provisions of this Act."
LORD HERSCHELL: I think it requires a little more consideration, if you look at Clause 3, Sub-section 2, the County Council may let land other than that they hire under Clause 2. If they only let the land they hire under Clause 1 it is all right; but they may let the land they acquire under Clause 2, and the only power to acquire land under Clause 2 is for the purpose of selling; and yet, as I understand, it is pare of the scheme that they may acquire land for the purpose of letting.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not understand whether noble Lords opposite wish to make an alteration of
1398
form or of substance. Up to the point of the speech of the noble Lord I understood that it was a question of form; the noble Lord opposite thought it would express the purpose of the Bill better to put in the word "hire." But now I understand him to alter substantially what at present is the enactment of the Bill. Is not the enactment of the Bill that the Council may buy land in order to sell it, and that the Council may hire land in order to let it? Is there any provision that the Council may buy land in order to let it?
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not understand my proposal to be a proposal of substance, but merely for carrying out what I understood was the intention of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I am perfectly willing to postpone this Amendment, if the noble Earl will take into consideration whether it is necessary. I only proposed it because I thought it was necessary to the Bill.
EARL CADOGAN: I am quite ready to consider it before the Report; but I do not think it is in any way necessary to the Bill. It may be that some explanatory words might be added. I will consider it.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
*LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, the next Amendment stands in my name, and it is, to alter the word "fifty" to "twenty-five" in line 16, practically making the holdings not to exceed between one acre and twenty-five acres; and I also propose, in line 17, that the rateable value shall not exceed £30. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl in charge of that Bill that the prime object of this Bill was purchase, because that makes the Amendment that I am going to move now more important. I assure the noble Earl I do not move it in any hostility to the Bill. I am quite willing to think that the Bill is to do all we are promised; and I had a message from my own woodman yesterday that he considered that this Bill was the finest thing that had ever been done for my estate. My Lords, I hope it will prove so. But we are always told that this Bill is an experiment, and because it is an experiment, which I hope and think may be useful and fruitful, I think we should subject it to a very close criticism.

1399
Within certain limits I think it may be a good experiment; beyond certain limits it may be a bad one; and I think, by leaving this very wide definition of small holdings, you are about to do two very mischievous things. In the first place, I think you will sanction financial transactions in hard cash by the County Councils on a very much larger scale than was ever contemplated under this Bill, by which you will limit the operation of the Act in its useful and proper directions; and I also think that by those transactions you will establish a proprietary class of small capitalists on the land, which I do not think any of us ever meant to establish. No doubt your Lordships read the Times newspaper, and, if so, you can hardly have failed to notice a very long and interesting letter in last Saturday's Times, by Sir John Lawes, dealing with this whole question of allotments and small farms, in which he points out that an arable farm of the size proposed in the Bill cannot possibly be started, taking into account suitable land for agriculture, much under £2,400. I do not think the small holder, who can enter into the obligations which a purchase of that sort contemplates, is the kind of small holder you would wish to set up under this Bill. I think, if you had a valuation clause instead of an acreage clause, which was proposed and received some very sturdy support in the other House from the Liberal side, I should never have moved this Amendment; but the danger you are running into is the possibility of very much larger farms than twenty-five acres being bought on the guarantee of the ratepayers' money, and, consequently, the setting up of a class of proprietors which was never contemplated. The class of proprietors that you wish to establish is the best type of agricultural labourers, and also the small artisans in the towns; and, if you wish the operation of this Act to extend to that class, you had better keep the acreage smaller and the valuation lower than you have it in the Bill. The supply of land for the purposes of this Act must in the nature of things be limited, and if the small capitalists can come in and ask for a guarantee of the ratepayers' money to set them up in thirty, forty, or fifty acres, you, by that amount, diminish the quantity of available land for the purposes of this Bill.
1400
I therefore hope the size of these holdings may be reduced from one to twenty-five acres, and I think that, if the valuation is fixed at £30 instead of £50, you will at all events obviate, to some extent, the grisly possibilities held out to us in Clause 16, which the noble Duke pointed out to us the other night. I also think that if you at all offend, by what you are doing now, the instinct of self-preservation in the ratepayers, of which Sir John Lawes speaks, you will make what may be a very useful and very fruitful Bill unpopular.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the first ("fifty") and insert ("twenty-five"), and leave out the second ("fifty"), and insert ("twenty-five"). And inline 17 leave out ("fifty") and insert ("thirty").—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
LORD HERRIES: I wish to support the Amendment proposed by my noble Friend. In one respect I differ from him, because the noble Lord said that on his property this Bill is supposed to be a great boon. I do not think myself that in my neighbourhood it will have very much effect, because small holdings exist to a great extent already on my own property; there are very few cottages to which there is not land enough attached to keep a cow. I was looking through the list of holdings in an adjacent parish, and I found that out of fifty-six, only one has not got three-quarters of an acre; the majority are from one to ten acres, and there are several of twenty and thirty acres. I think, therefore, I am able to speak with a certain amount of experience on the question of small holdings, and my experience is that, when you have a holding of over thirty acres, the fanner begins to think himself in a better position than he is in when he has less. I think less than twenty acres would be a still better Amendment. When a farmer has less than twenty acres, he is prepared to do a day's work for others, and so he has other means of supporting himself and his family; but when he has a larger holding, then he considers himself above doing work of that sort, and is obliged to support himself from what he derives from his own holding. I find that to be the case repeatedly. Whenever I have a holding below twenty acres to be let, I have a number of applicants; for a larger hold-

1401
ing there are very few. The answer will perhaps be that, if there is no demand for these holdings of fifty acres, then it will be a dead letter, and therefore we might leave it as it is. I would reply that there may be a demand in some parts of England for these holdings. There is always a tendency for men to apply for more than they can properly cultivate, and I feel sure that men, especially artisans, who have not had much experience in the cultivation of land, will be found prepared to ask for more land than they can properly cultivate. The result will be a very great danger of the County Councils losing their money—the land will be thrown upon their hands, and they will have to sub-divide it, and perhaps erect more buildings. But there is another reason for asking the Government to accept this Amendment. Under this Bill only a limited amount of money is available for the purposes of the Bill—a penny rate is all that is available. In my own county—the East Riding of Yorkshire—that, I think, would amount to £140,000 or £150,000. If you were selling nothing but these larger holdings at the price of £2,000 a piece, you would have only some seventy-five holders; and, in the interests of the masses against the classes, I say it is very much better for the small artisans and agricultural labourers to have more money at the disposal of the County Council, which will enable them to let small holdings to these poorer classes. It is from the small holdings that I believe great benefit will result. I am strongly in favour of the Bill, and I hope it will have great results. I do not anticipate great results from the purchasing clauses; I do anticipate some from the letting. I consider the greatest improvement introduced in the Bill was the power to let land to small cultivators, and I anticipate great advantage will accrue to the labouring classes of this country from the power the County Council will have to let land to these agricultural labourers. But, if you enable the County Council to spend money in buying land for large holdings, you will considerably diminish the amount of money which will be at the disposal of the County Councils for letting and for supporting these smaller holdings. For these reasons I ask the Lord Privy Seal to accept this Amendment. I am doing it in the interests of
1402
the Bill, and in the interests of the agricultural classes.
*LORD NORTON: I think your Lordships must consider this Bill in connection with the Allotments Act, in which the limit is one acre. When this subject was first brought before Parliament by Mr. Jesse Collings a few years ago, one Bill proposed to deal both with allotments and small holdings; but the two are distinct subjects; and, though having already the allotment subject dealt with, this Bill proposes to deal with the whole subject, that is to say, with allotments in duplicate legislation, and, in addition, with the new subject of small holdings. But the two should be kept distinct in our minds if we wish to deal with them properly. Allotments are meant expressly for the labouring classes who can go on labouring and yet manage a small piece of land. The object of this Bill is for a totally different class called small yeomen; and I must say, in passing, that it seems to me a most ridiculous idea that any social class can be created or recreated by Act of Parliament. These holdings may be hired or bought by a class who are to give up labour. Now the Amendment proposes to limit the area of small holdings I think exactly in the wrong way. The Allotments Act deals with small plots of land; and what we are now proposing is larger holdings which may be owned and which may be the support of a man and his family, passing away altogether from labour into a farmer class. What the limits of both should be is a difficult question. When a man can cease to be a labourer and begin to support himself entirely by land depends to some extent upon the nature of the laud; and that has not been sufficiently borne in mind in considering this subject; because either an allotment or a small holding in pasture is a different consideration from the same quantity of land in arable. An allotment in pasture is easily managed by the wife of the labourer; the labourer continuing at his labour and the wife managing the dairy. And the same may be said of these larger holdings; the size may safely be a larger one if in pasture. But it is the transition point between labour and ownership that is the difficulty. The Allotments Act limits the area for the labourer to hire at one acre; but, though that is the limit of the Act,

1403
the limit in practice is much larger. I have hundreds of allotments myself, varying from a quarter of an acre to fifteen acres, and I know exactly the difficulty of that transition point. There is a point at which farmers begin to complain that their labourers are out of the way when they want them, going to market to buy or sell a cow. The labourers also begin to complain at that particular transition point at having to pay rent for their cottages, because they say the farmers never pay anything for houses or buildings. But, my Lords, upon considering this question whether the limit of fifty acres is the right limit or not, let us remember that we are dealing with a larger holding than that contemplated by the Allotments Act, and let us bear in mind that the very complicated machinery of this Bill will not apply to very small allotments, nor to holdings of such a size as would justify, in any way, the introduction of a mischievous sort of middleman in the form of the County Council which will be an elected body. I can assure your Lordships, with my rather large experience of allotments, that I have found electioneering quite enough to deal with on the part of allotment leagues; and, when we come to small holding leagues, I fancy it will be a much more difficult, if not more dangerous action in the country to deal with.
*EARL FORTESCUE: Notwithstanding the very lucid and able speech of the noble Duke on the Second Reading, upon a subject on which he has almost unequalled practical knowledge gained by a series of Committees on Agricultural questions, he did not enlist me among the opponents of the Bill; but I think we cannot doubt that he triumphantly established the impossibility of reviving on any scale the class of British yeomen. The noble Duke showed that in England the course of events had caused the supersession of the yeoman. My Lords, differing from my noble Friend who has just sat down, I venture to think that the Amendment is a very desirable one; and very good, and, to my mind, conclusive reasons were given by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment against the County Council spending so large a proportion of the limited fund at their disposal for all the purposes of the Act, in
1404
establishing what cannot be considered such very small farms with all the necessary expenses so admirably and lucidly set forth by Sir John Lawes in his very able letter. As to the prospect of there being a number of possible purchasers of twenty-five acre holdings, that is obviously a very much better limit for the class of agricultural labourers and small artisans, for whom the Bill is particularly intended, than one of fifty acres. I have known various instances of quite small tenants on a chiefly arable farm, standing singly in their neighbourhood, prosper, because they could utilise on various kinds of jobs the horses which they had for periodical purposes on their farm, in excess of the habitual requirements of the farm; but those cases must be very few and far between in each neighbourhood. As regards dairying I believe this Bill will render a great service. We know from the late Lord Tollemache's experience that very small holdings in a dairy country may yield great benefits to great numbers, chiefly of the wage-earning class; but, for that purpose, it is not necessary to go as high as fifty acres. The figure of fifty acres and the limit of valuation of £50 is a sort of forlorn attempt to revive the British yeoman; and every good purpose of the Bill can be perfectly answered by fixing the limit respectively at twenty-five acres and £30. And it is far more likely to do extensive good, if so Large a proportion of the money of the County Council is not experimentally expended on holdings of fifty acres, and the loss liable to be incurred from un-prosperous tenants or failing tenants by the County Council—which is not the most desirable body to establish as an extensive land-owning and land-letting body—would be obviated. I earnestly hope that this proposed limitation may be acceded to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I trust I shall not misinterpret the intentions of the noble Lords who have spoken if I say that, in the objections which they have advanced to this clause, I think they have rather intimated that they imagine that the effect in all cases would be that these holdings would be of an extent of fifty acres. Now, although your Lordships are aware of the fact, you will perhaps forgive me for reminding you that fifty acres is only a limit, and if,

1405
as the noble Earl who has just sat down has stated, holdings of a smaller character would be a greater advantage to districts and would be more availed of, surely then the limit of fifty acres would never be readied. There is nothing in the clause to say that the holding shall be large or shall reach fifty acres. All it says is that the limit shall be fifty acres. And the reason, my Lords, why we placed the limit of fifty acres in the Bill was because we wished, as much as possible, to draw the Bill on the lines laid down in the Report of the Committee on Small Holdings. And upon this subject perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read their recommendation, which is very strong—
"Your Committee understand, by small holdings, agricultural tenancies or cultivating ownerships not exceeding fifty acres in extent, or £50 annual valuation. Owing to the varying quantity of land, it is impossible to fix any particular average as sufficient for the support of a family, but your Committee believe that land of from £30 to £50 valuation will generally be adequate for that purpose. The value and national importance of small holdings is not, however, confined to those which provide for the entire subsistence of the cultivators. On the contrary, they are extremely useful in the case of village tradesmen and others who have some extraneous means of income, and employ their spare time on the land as a source both of recreation and income. For this class the holdings to be provided may be of any size, from one acre upwards."
And then they conclude as follows:—
"Your Committee recommend that in any legislation on this subject the term 'small holdings' should be interpreted to mean a holding from one to 50 acres, or not exceeding £50 in annual valuation."
The object of that alternative was that there is a variety of value of the soil, as your Lordships are aware, in various parts of the country—to such an extent that the value of 50 acres in one part of the country might be exceedingly great, and in another part of the country would not be sufficient to provide for the maintenance of a man and his family. There are cases well known to your Lordships in Scotland, or in the hills of Wales, in which it might be desirable to secure a larger holding, that is to say, a holding which, on such unprofitable land as that, would suffice for a man and his family. It was therefore provided not that the limit of 50 acres should be variable at will, but that there should be an alterna-
1406
tive that a holding might be created of the value of £50. I hope that explanation will be satisfactory to my noble Friend opposite. Considering the strong nature of the recommendation of the Committee on Small Holdings, and considering that 50 acres is merely a limit, and does not prevent a large creation of smaller holdings, I venture to hope my noble Friend will not press his Amendment.
*LORD RIBBLESDALE: I have quite understood all along that fifty acres is an elastic limit; but my contention is that it is a bad elastic limit, that directly you get beyond twenty-five acres you get into difficulties. I was certain, of course, that the noble Lord would refer me to the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, because it is exactly the same answer that was given in another place, where very much the same point was raised. But anybody reading this Report, instead of taking the view advanced by the noble Earl, would, I think, take the view that what was in the mind of the Committee was that a small holding was to be one of £50 valuation; and, if you had stuck to that, I should not have moved the Amendment. There is just I one thing I should like to point out which I did not before. We have been promised logically from the other side of the House, and we have been promised politically on this side, that we are to have compulsion later on. I do not know whether it is to be so or not; but if the noble Duke's logic is right, and if the politics of the noble Lords below me are right, you will have this question raised in a very much mere disagreeable form later on. My Lords, I am not myself against compulsion. I believe that if this Bill is to do all the good we are told it is to do, if it is to be the cornucopia, of civic and social virtues as we are promised, you must have compulsion; but I do believe that twenty-five acres might be a fair limit of compulsion under this Bill, whereas fifty acres would be a very unfair one. Of course, my Lords, "He, who complies against his will, is of the same opinion still"; and I hold these opinions much more strongly after I have heard the objections to my Amendment than I did before. I do not suppose there is any use in dividing on the question, and I

1407
ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2.
*THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I will not detain your Lordships very long in explaining the reasons why I have put the Amendments upon the Paper which stand in my name. On the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl who spoke third in the Debate (Earl Spencer) expressed a view, which I think is held by a great many of your Lordships, that more should be done under the Bill to let more land to the labourer. That I find is an opinion that is largely held out of doors. When this Bill was first introduced into the other House of Parliament, there was, I believe, a much more limited power given to the County Council to let small amounts of land than there is at present, and the extended power, as the clause now stands, was extracted in Debate in the House of Commons by extending the area to fifteen acres which the County Council might hire and let. But, along with that power which was given to them, there are some, as I think, absurd restrictions in the commencement of the clause, which I propose to leave out. Admittedly this Bill is an experiment. You are dealing with the class of agricultural labourers who are undoubtedly very poor,—certainly very few of them are able to find the one-fifth which it will be necessary for them to put down in purchasing the land; and you certainly will have more chance of enabling the agricultural labourer in rural districts to rise, if you could let the land to them at a fair rent and enable them to get something out of it before they purchase it. It is clear that the object of the Bill is that the labourers should purchase their holdings; but the question is, will the agricultural labourers be in a position to do so for a long time to come? My experience of allotments is that one-fifth of the allotments fall on your hands after two or three years, and you have to find fresh tenants; that very few of the labourers are successful even in cultivating allotments; and it is very rare indeed to
1408
find an agricultural labourer who will be able to put down the money to purchase his holding. One of the points made by the noble Earl in his speech on the Second Reading was, I think, a very good one; he said—
"It is no consolation to the labourer, who has worked all his life in his native village, to tell him that twenty, thirty, or forty miles away there is a plot of land he can hire."
Supposing in the centre of a large rural district the County Council were unable to purchase land in a village, but the labourers were wishing to hire land; the County Council would say:—If you go to the neighbourhood of Northampton, Welling borough, or Birmingham, you can hire land, because we will hire the land and let it to you; but in the rural districts we cannot. It seems to me that this clause is the strongest argument in favour of that migration to the towns, which it is supposed to be the object of the Bill to prevent. If you come to think of it you will see that this restriction on the power of the County Councils is most absurd. Why should the proximity to a town, or the suitability for building purposes, or any other special reason, be a restriction upon the County Council as to hiring land? If you have admitted the principle of the County Council hiring land if they think desirable, why do you not give them the right to do so? My Lords, yesterday you passed the Second Reading of an Act called "The Allotments (Scotland) Act," by which you are extending to Scotland the Allotments Act (England); but you are further giving the County Councils in Scotland absolute power to hire land as much as they like, to buy land as much as they like, to let it out in allotments as they like, and to do anything they like with the land. And you are allowing the parishes to elect the managers subject to rules to be passed by the County Council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill deprecated the County Councils being placed in the position of middlemen; but that is what this Bill does. They are to buy land and to sell it again, and to borrow money for the purpose. What is the whole tendency of our Local Government legislation but to make the County Council the middleman? Now, my

1409
Lords, one word as to restrictions. Who is to decide, I want to know, whether land has a prospective value for building purposes? I, living in the midst of a rural district, might say that by the prospective advent of a railway, which might have a station in any village, the land might become valuable for building purposes. It seems to me that if you are dealing with this question, if you are bringing in the principle of letting, if you are giving power to County Councils to deal in this matter with letting holdings—and I may point out that by Clause 4 Subsection 2 you enable County Councils to buy land themselves and to let it out, but you do not enable them to hire land except it has a prospective value for building purposes—of all the absurd restrictions I ever heard of these certainly are the most absurd. My Lords, I do not suppose that reason will weigh upon the eve of a Dissolution—we have been told that this is a matter that ought not to be pressed for fear of endangering the passing of the Bill in another place; but knowing something of county government and management, I do not hesitate to say that to place such restrictions in a Bill dealing with county government is the most absurd thing that a dying Parliament can do. My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendments moved,
In page 1, line 18, after ("and where"), leave out all the words down to and inclusive of ("desirable"), in line 21; and in line 21, after ("the Council") insert ("think it desirable they.")—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
EARL CADOGAN: I am afraid your Lordships will think me guilty of constant repetition if I say that I really believe the main answer to be given to the arguments of my noble Friend is the same that I had the honour of giving to the first Amendment moved to the first clause; but I cannot too emphatically repeat that the object of the Bill is purchase, and not hiring and letting. My noble Friend says that, in the speech I made on proposing the Second Reading of the Bill, I stated the various objections to hiring and letting, and that I also gave reasons why purchase was desirable. To every one of those reasons I still adhere. My
1410
noble Friend says that we have provided under the Bill for letting by the County Council, and therefore we stultify our own argument; but our argument is that this is a Bill providing for the sale of small holdings, and that under one clause, and under very exceptional circumstances which we enumerate, we have provided also for letting. But the object, apparently, of noble Lords opposite is to increase and widen that power of letting; and it is that object, I am sorry to say, which we feel it our duty to counteract. My noble Friend wishes to omit all the qualifying words in Clause 2 which limit the special occasions on which this hiring is to be carried out. I quite admit that, if hiring were the principal object of the Bill, those restrictions are valueless; but as, on the contrary, we wish this letting to be a very exceptional process, I am bound to say that I think they are in every way necessary. The noble Marquess has asked who is to be the judge of these special circumstances? My Lords, if you concede to the County Council the carrying out of this matter, you must leave to them, to a certain extent, the decision as to when and how this letting is to be done; and I cannot see anything in the clause, to which the noble Marquess has moved this Amendment, which would prevent the County Council from exercising a very reasonable judgment as to the time and occasion upon which hiring is to take the place of sale. I am afraid I cannot admit the argument of my noble Friend. The Government consider, as I said before, that it is very undesirable to make the County Councils middlemen. My noble Friend says we have done so under the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: In Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: But, as I said before, we have done so under very exceptional circumstances. I am afraid it is impossible for us to agree to extend the limit for hiring. My Lords, in connection with this Amendment, I should also like to call my noble Friend's attention to the fact that, if land is only hired by the County Council, it cannot be sold. I have said before what, I venture to think, has been lost sight of by noble Lords on both sides of the House, that the main object of the Bill is to increase the number of occupying owners; and,

1411
if you are going to make it into a Bill for hiring and letting, and practically to do away with sale and purchase, to that extent you will not increase the number of occupying owners, and you will not carry out the main object for which the Bill is intended. For these reasons, my Lords, I hope my noble Friend will not press his Amendments.
Amendments (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have an Amendment on this clause which is merely to bring in an alternative of a £15 valuation. It is necessary to bring the clause into harmony with Clause 4, Sub-section 2, which allows a holding to be either of fifteen acres or of £15 annual value. The latter limit was inserted in Clause 4 in another place after Clause 2 was passed; therefore it is necessary in order to produce symmetry between the two clauses; and I hope your Lordships will consent to pass the Amendment.
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 23, to leave out ("not exceeding fifteen acres each"), and insert ("in accordance with the provisions of this Act").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: I have an Amendment to propose which is consequential, to bring the clause into symmetry with Clause 2. I hope there will be no objection to insert the words proposed.
Amendment moved, in page 2, line 27, after ("Act"), to insert ("or where the land has been hired by them on lease or otherwise.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5.
LORD BASING: My Lords, I have put down a very short Amendment to line 13 of this clause, in order to elicit an explanation as to what is precisely meant by the enactment of the clause. Under Sub-section I it is evident that a Committee, which will be an important and powerful Committee of the County
1412
Council, is to be appointed to advise the Council whether or not the Act is to be put into operation within the county. Sub-section 2 provides that if any petition for a holding is received by the County Council they are to refer it to a Committee, and I want to know whether it is to be the same Committee alluded to before, or another and different Committee? It seems to me that we are rather tending to overload the Council by obligations to appoint many Committees, if another Committee is intended. Later on a third Committee is to be constituted, of a totally different character and complexion from these two, and with different provisions as to the persons to be added to it. I think all this would be extremely confusing and awkward, and that, if so many County Councillors are to be engaged in this work, they will be a little puzzled how to proceed. Surely it would Vie far better that one Committee should take this subject into consideration generally, and should advise the Council in respect of petitions which may from time to time come before them; that at all events is my notion of what would be the best proceeding; and, with that object in view, I propose the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved, in Sub-section (2), line 13, to leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(The Lord Basing.)
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I would only add to what the noble Lord has said that there is at present in the County Council a Statutory Allotments Committee appointed; and surely that Allotments Committee would be the Committee to whom this matter should, in the first instance, be referred.
EARL CADOGAN: The receipt of a Petition alone would render a Committee necessary, and, in the absence of any Petition, there might be no Committee at all. But I see no objection to the Amendment of my noble Friend, and I will accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: I have a drafting Amendment, in order to remove ambiguity and to make the language of the clause correspond with Clause 17, where the County Councillor representing the electoral division is constituted

1413
a member of the Committee of Management, whose appointment is authorised under this clause.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 18, to leave out ("part"), and insert ("electoral division").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I beg to move to leave out the words on page 3, lines 22 and 23, "all the costs of conveyance to the purchaser, including any," and to insert "the." The words proposed to be left out are rendered unnecessary by the insertion of Clause 10, which makes the registration of title compulsory.
Amendment moved, in page 3, lines 22 and 23, to leave out ("all the costs of conveyance to the purchaser, including any,") and insert ("the.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I do not quite understand the reason for the scheme of the provision with regard to the registration of title. As I understand it, it is that the County Council may buy the land, and have the title investigated in the ordinary way by their own solicitor or legal advisers; they are not obliged to have it investigated by the Registry Office. But when they dispose of it as small holdings, then the small holding, which forms part of the land they bought, is to be registered in the Land Registry, without any investigation of title, with an absolute title.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may tell my noble and learned Friend that there are Amendments to be proposed to Clause 10 which will get rid of that difficulty. I had observed the inconvenience and incongruity of those provisions, and I think the Amendment to be proposed will remove them.
LORD HERSCHELL: They are not on the Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are not, but they ought to be.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERRIES: My Lords, in proposing the Amendment that stands in my name I must say that I rather hesitate, because the Lord Privy Seal has not, so
1414
far, shown himself malleable with respect to any Amendment. Whether for political or other reasons, it appears to me that this Bill must be considered as imperfect, and I think, if my Amendment is accepted, it will afford greater security to the County Councils to obtain any return for the money that they advance. As the Bill now stands, the purchaser is only required to pay down one-fifth of the purchase money; and, especially if you have a large holding, I think that sum is hardly sufficient to secure the County Council against the chance of loss. Besides, if you look through the Bill, you naturally would suppose it had been drawn up originally so that one-fourth should be the amount to be paid down; two-fourths may be secured on the holding; audit becomes rather an arithmetical difficulty how to make the difference after having paid the two-fourths and having paid down one-fifth. But there is another thing; if there is any failure to pay up the arrears, the loss will fall upon the county in many cases if the value of the land diminishes considerably. I know an instance of a holding of about sixty acres which was purchased a few years ago for over £2,000, and sold the other day for £900. Now, if the County Council had purchased that holding what a great loss there would have been! I think, under the circumstances, it is very important that we should, so far as possible, secure the County Council against any danger of loss. I daresay many of your Lordships remember that in 1846 Feargus O'Connor started a little company; he purchased three hundred acres which he divided into eighty-six allotments; the owner of each allotment had a cottage built for him and three or four acres, and each was given £7 10s. to start work. In a very few years they all failed; the property went into Chancery; and I believe only one or two of the original allottees remained on the land after a lapse of twenty years. My Lords, supposing in the place of Feargus O'Connor we had the County Council that had spent £5,000 in buying land, I do not think they would have been prepared to advance £7 10s. to each person who took land under them, and the loss to the ratepayers would have been very great. Therefore the more security you give to the ratepayers in this respect the

1415
better. For these reasons I move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved, in page 3, line 29, to leave out ("one-fifth"), and insert ("one-fourth.")—(The Lord Herries.)
EARL CADOGAN: After the preliminary remarks of the noble Lord, I hardly dare to oppose any Amendment that he maybe likely to desire; and I feel that in this case certainly there is perhaps much to be said in favour of his argument; the more so that, as I have said, we have founded our Bill largely upon the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, which upon this subject says—
"It is essential that the purchasers of small holdings should provide in cash a proportion of the purchase-money, not less than one-fifth or one-fourth of the whole."
It is obvious that one-fourth would be a better security for the ratepayers than one-fifth. I am inclined to think the security which the noble Lord proposes would be adequate, and therefore I will accept his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I regret extremely to find that the noble Earl is ready to consent to this serious alteration of the Bill. I believe it was originally one-fourth, and afterwards altered to one-fifth after full discussion in the other House; and certainly, to facilitate the action of the Bill, I think one-fifth is preferable. The object that we have is that the Bill shall have a real operation—I cannot help feeling that there will be great difficulties in bringing it into real operation—but, if you make this change, I think the result will be to stop the action of the Bill considerably.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord will see there are two dangers: there is the one he has pointed out, that the agricultural labourer will think that the price he has to pay is beyond his means and the Bill will not work; but there is also the other danger, that the County Council will think the operation is dangerous, and they will be afraid of burdening the ratepayers with it. This measure is tentative and experimental; and, though I do not profess any strong opinion as between one-fourth and one-fifth, I think the line of caution is better on the whole, and that it would be better to put the County Councils in a safe position.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not convinced by what the noble Marquess has said; and, although it is not of much avail to oppose anything in the face of the Government, I must say "not-content" to the Amendment.
EARL CADOGAN: I may remind the noble Earl opposite that the Small Holdings Committee spent a great deal of time over this part of their Report, and, inasmuch as in their opinion one-fifth or one-fourth is equally good security, I dc not think great importance need be attached to it.
EARL SPENCER: There was a very strong expression of opinion in another place in favour of one-fifth, as giving greater facilities to labourers who might be in difficulties to avail themselves of the Act; and I attach very considerable importance to this Amendment. I am very sorry indeed that Her Majesty's Government should agree to alter what has been decided after full discussion in another place. With regard to the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, my noble Friend cannot argue that the Committee were in favour of one-fourth, because they said that either would do.
EARL CADOGAN: I did not argue that they were in favour; I said that they recommended either course; they gave no preference to either.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not feel that I have sufficient strength of conviction to attach any importance to the matter, and therefore, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to let it go.
LORD HERRIES: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have a series of Amendments, which are merely drafting Amendments, which I beg to move.
Amendments moved,
In page 3, line 37, after ("and") insert ("shall either"); line 38, after ("instalments") insert ("of principal"); line 40, leave out ("and") and insert ("or shall"); line 41, leave out ("shall"); page 4, leave out Sub-section (7).—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7.
EARL CADOGAN: This Amendment, my Lords, is purely verbal, to prevent conflicting with Clause 10.
Amendment moved, in page 4, line 19, after ("Act") insert ("except as otherwise provided").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8.
EARL CADOGAN: This, my Lords, is merely another verbal Amendment to leave out the word "register" and insert "list." The use of the word "list." might prevent confusion with regard to the provisions as to registration in Clause 10.
Amendment moved, in page 4, line 27, to leave out ("register") and insert ("list").—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I move to leave out all the words in line 30 after the word "let" to the end of the clause. These words were inserted in the House of Commons, but further consideration has led to the conclusion that they are unnecessary, and might suggest confusion with the provisions as to registration of title in Clause 10 again.
Amendment moved, to leave out all after ("let") in line 30 to the end of the clause.—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, this is only a verbal Amendment. I think, if my wording were adopted, it would transpose Sub-sections (b) and (c).
EARL CADOGAN: Is my noble Friend moving both Amendments?
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Yes.
EARL CADOGAN: I am willing to accept them.
Amendments moved, in page 4, line 38, to leave out ("unless let with the consent of the County Council"); line 39, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier as the case may be").—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
Amendments agreed to.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: In line 41 I move to insert after "sub-divided" the words "buy, sell, let, or sub-let."
EARL CADOGAN: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I would point out to my noble Friend that the words "buy, sell" would restrict the prohibition against sub-division to one particular mode of sub-division; whereas we wish to extend the restriction or prohibition against sub-division to all sub-divisions. I cannot, therefore, accept the words "buy, sell"; and the latter part I think is unnecessary. The words "or sub-let" I think might be inserted if the noble Lord wishes to move the Amendment in that place.
LORd RIBBLESDALE: I quite accept that.
LORD HERSCHELL: I am sure that that is unnecessary, and it might create difficulty. "Sub-divide" would coverall my noble Friend desires—every form of sub-division, whether you do it by letting or sub-letting. Letting applies to the whole. You shall not sub-divide it by any means, nor, even if you sub-divide it, shall you let it.
EARL CADOGAN: I think it is necessary also to insert "or sub-let." You may obtain the consent of the County Council for letting, but, if you do not add the words "or sub-let," having obtained the consent for letting, the lessee might sub-let without the consent of the County Council. I venture to suggest that the words should be "shall not be sub-divided, let, or sub-let."
LORD HERSCHELL: Then I think you had better put in "assigned," otherwise the lessee might assign the whole of it, as well as sub-let it; and your object is that he shall not do that without the consent of the County Council.
EARL CADOGAN: Would my noble and learned Friend insert "or sub-let" after "assign"?
LORD HERSCHELL: Yes.
Amendment, as further amended, moved, in line 14 after ("sub-divided") to insert ("assigned, let, or sub-let").
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have got a new subsection to propose to Clause 9, on page 5, after line 7, to insert: "(g.) In the case of any holding to which the County Council are of opinion that this condition ought to apply, that

1419
no dwelling house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council." I need hardly remind your Lordships that the Bill, as originally introduced in another place, contained a provision that no house should be built unless the holding is of the annual value, for the purpose of the income Tax, of not exceeding £25. It was found that some restrictive condition of this kind would be necessary, and I hope your Lordships will consider it reasonable.
Amendment moved,
In page 5, after line 7, to insert: "(g.) In the case of any holding to which the County Council are of opinion that this condition ought to apply, that no dwelling house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
LORD BASING: Will the noble Earl explain what is the condition referred to in the Amendment?
EARL CADOGAN: I do not think the drafting is very clear, but the condition of the new sub-section that I am now reading is the sub-section itself.
LORD HERSCHELL: If instead of "this" you put "such a," I think it would be clearer.
EARL CADOGAN: The real meaning is this, if I may so read it—
"In the case of any holding to which the County Council are of opinion that the condition ought to be applied that no dwelling house should be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council, no dwelling house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council."
LORD BASING: The question of erecting dwellings is the subject of several of these sub-sections. I think a good deal of confusion may arise.
EARL CADOGAN: If there is any doubt upon the point I will consider it and bring it up on Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10.
EARL CADOGAN: My Amendment is to leave out all words after "but" in line 7 to end of line 9, and to insert—
"Any person claiming by a title paramount to the title of the County Council shall be entitled to damages against the County Council for loss of the land."
1420
It is thought better to guard against any possible hardship, rather than to provide a remedy for the real owner against damage owing to any flaw in the title of the County Council.
Amendment moved,
In page 6, leave out all after ("but") in line 7 to the end of line 9, and insert ("any person claiming by a title paramount to the title of the County Council shall be entitled to damages against the County Council for loss of the land.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
LORD HERSCHELL: This now raises the point that I thought was going to be met.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble and learned Friend will forgive me for interposing. The real truth is that some persons have been endeavouring to mend two totally different sets of provisions without quite appreciating what has been the effect of either—namely, Clause 6, sub-section 7, and this Clause 10. I anticipate that my noble and learned Friend will object to the words "without further inquiry" in this clause; and so I shall too; but, if those words are left out, it will be seen that the purchase is to be registered in the ordinary way by the ordinary means, and by inquiry in the Land Transfer Court. That is what I propose should be amended. Then, I think, there will be no difficulty in working the land transfer system as applicable to this Bill. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that it would be impossible to say that you should register a holding without any special inquiry by the public officer whose duty it is to see that it is registered properly.
LORD HERSCHELL: I understand my noble and learned Friend to take out the part about effecting a remedy; because, if the land is registered with an absolute title, that title is absolute against all the world, and nobody can have a remedy against the County Council or anyone else.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is true; but what has been attempted to be done is that, when the County Council have purchased the land and let it to somebody else, somebody else shall have an absolute title against all the world; but it was not intended to leave the County Council liable in damages against the person whose land they had taken.
Further Amendments moved, in page 6 line 4, omit ("without further inquiry").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then do you want these words—
"Any person claiming by a title paramount to the title of the County Council shall be entitled to damages against the County Council for loss of the land."
I do not see how there would be any claim against the County Council?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Leaving out the words "without further inquiry" merely says that, either with inquiry or without, they shall be registered.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then the Land Transfer Office will make the ordinary inquiry, and after they have registered with an absolute title, that title is absolute against all the world, and nobody could have a claim against anybody.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the Land Office are authorised to register after their inquiry, no matter what the effect of the inquiry were to be.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That will produce a singular state of things. I have a vivid remembrance of the Committee that sat for so long a time, and, though I am not competent to give a legal opinion, it seems to me a curious thing that we shall have an absolute title registered in the Land Office which in point of fact is not absolute in one sense; because, if anybody protested, they would have a remedy against somebody, and that would be a very strange contradiction. I do not see how it is to work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think a great deal of the confusion arises from a misapprehension of the circumstances under which both clauses were originally introduced. The noble Earl knows that this was not part of the original Bill; it was put in the Bill in another place and accepted hastily, without thinking of the rest of the framework of the Bill. I think the difficulty arises from the use of the word "shall." If my noble Friend at the head of the Government is right in his construction, what he means is that, although the Land Office might make inquiry, it would be a very otiose proceeding, because they must register notwithstanding. I do not so under-
1422
stand the draftsman. What is meant is that, if there is a good title, they should register it, and, if there is not a good title, they should not register it. I agree that it ought to be made much plainer than it at present is.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: Does the noble and learned Lord propose to add the words in the noble Lord's Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; leave them as they are.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: I understand the Lord Privy Seal withdraws his last Amendment.
EARL CADOGAN: Yes.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is of a different character, although it is connected with the registration law; and I have very little doubt the Lord Privy Seal will assent to it. My objection to the clause is that it throws upon the County Councils the obligation to appoint local agents for the purpose of registration, and also to pay the expense of such agents. I think, as the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said, it arises from a misapprehension altogether of the working of the Registration Act. At the present moment there is an office in London, which is very little known, for the registration of title, called the Registration Office; and it is the duty of that office to register estates all over the country on application, and to employ the necessary local agents for the purpose. There is, therefore, not the slightest necessity, or reason, why the County Council should either appoint local agents or pay them. Supposing the County Council of Surrey appoint a local agent at Chertsey, that man is, in fact, not the local agent of the County Council—he is practically the local agent of the office in London. Again, why should they pay the expenses? The expenses of the registration are supposed to pay the expenses of agency, and the costs of that registration are paid at the head office in London. The effect, therefore, of this clause will be to make the County Council pay part of the expenses of the head office in London. I have very little doubt that this has been introduced under a misapprehension,

1423
and that the Lord Privy Seal will be good enough to see that it is corrected.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 13, to leave out ("on the application and at the expense of a County Council").—(The Lord Thring.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble Friend does not quite understand the object of the clause. Originally the proposition was that there should be a land registry in every county. That would have involved one of two things: either a complete staff, such as there is in the Land Registry Office in London, for the purpose of examining title, and establishing an extremely expensive machinery which might have been unnecessary; or the chief officer of the Land Registry going down from time to time to places where these different small holdings were purchased. That was thought to be inconvenient, and it was suggested that, instead of doing that, if there was a mere agency in the county, for the purpose, practically, of transmitting the applications to London to be dealt with there, that might properly be done; and that it was part of the natural work of the County Council to do that. I myself thought it was a very undesirable thing to establish, unnecessarily, different little registries all over the country, and I think the noble Earl, who served with me on that Land Transfer Committee, would concur that it would be a very unnecessary and improper expense.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But, the agency then being established, the question was, who was to pay for it? As to that I think a constitutional question arises. If it is not to be paid for under the circumstances suggested by the clause as it stands, it strikes me that this House may have a difficulty in maintaining that they have a right to impose a tax on anybody else.
*LORD THRING: Unless you can bring it home to the working man that he can buy land here or there the Bill will be no use. I have learned from various Committees upon which I have sat, relating to the habits of the working classes, that it is idle to offer them any benefit unless you go to them and tell them of it. I believe that the institution of local agencies and centres for sale
1424
is essential to the Bill; but, in my opinion, with great deference to the noble and learned Lord, it would be unfair to throw that burden on the County Council, or to throw upon them the responsibility; because the local agents, when they are appointed,, in fact, bring grist to the mill in London. The Land Office is paid out of the costs it charges upon the estate. The local agent cannot act as agent for the County Council; he must act practically as agent for the chief office; otherwise business cannot be conducted. All I ask is that the expenses of this agency should be allowed to go on as they would without this clause at all. If this clause is not inserted, the chief office in London will have ample power to employ local agents, and I think would be able to give them instructions to tell people in their neighbourhood what lands are on sale.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I may misunderstand my noble Friend behind me, but I cannot help thinking that he has not quite apprehended what the object of the clause is. It is not by way of giving information, or diffusing amongst the labouring classes the knowledge what lands are for sale; it is a portion of the system of registration. The County Council is the purchaser, and it was thought that the operation of registering these purchases might be facilitated by the appointment of these local agents. I agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite that it would have been better to have left it to the Registration Office to deal with it, and I have some doubt whether these local agents would be of great avail; but, if this Amendment might endanger the framework of the legislation, I cannot think there is sufficient importance in it for us to pursue the matter.
LORD THRING: It is useless for me, of course, to insist against the opinion expressed on both sides of the House, but I believe the Amendment could not possibly endanger the Bill, as it proposes no new tax whatever.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, this clause begins with an

1425
ambiguity for which the Government draftsman is not responsible; and, if Her Majesty's Government were to accept my Amendment, I should have no objection to it; but, as the clause now reads, all freeholds in the country under fifty acres would be changed in their tenure, because the words restricting it to holdings under this Act which I imagine the Government intended to put in are left out. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Small Holdings, to the effect that the creation of small holdings is of national importance; and the noble Marquess at the head of the Government said much the same thing—although he said that he feared that political economy might be against them. There are some difficulties in the way of small freeholds which the Government could not obviate; but there are others which are artificial, and could be removed by the Government. No doubt what has led to the diminution of small freeholds has been the concurrent increase of rates and taxes along with the diminished value of agricultural produce. Some of your Lordships, may have read an able article in Blackwood of April last on the history of small holdings, which shows that, so far from this complaint being new, the small holdings began to decrease in number from the time of the Civil Wars in the fifteenth century; and as early as the reign of Henry VII. Acts were passed to keep up the small farms; and other Acts have been passed successively until 1750, when, owing to the agricultural depression caused chiefly by bad seasons, the same complaints began to be made of migration. My Lords, not only in England have complaints been made of rural migration, but Virgil and Horace are full of complaints, and of requests to the people to remain in the country. The low price of corn, caused by importation from Egypt and Libya, affected the Latian labourer as the low prices now affect the wheat lands of Great Britain. I must take exception to the assertion made by my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Kimberley) in reference to this Bill that France is a Protectionist country. Although France levies a duty of eight shillings and nine-pence a quarter on imported wheat, this does not raise the price of bread, nor
1426
does it keep out American corn. About three years ago there was great excitement at Rennes because the French Government had bought American wheat instead of the wheat of the district for their military stores, and the people of Rennes offered to sell their wheat at the same price as the Government would have to give for the American wheat. My Lords, the Amendment that I have moved has for its object the liberating of small holdings from paying Succession Duty, and that increases the expense of every transfer, since inquiry has I to be made whether Succession Duty has been paid. If the Government are sincerely anxious to increase small holdings in number and to perpetuate them, why do they not reduce the stamps upon the transfer of portions of land under fifty acres, which stamps now amount to half the cost of the conveyance? I move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 20, to leave out ("or exempt it from succession duty.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
EARL CADOGAN: I am sorry I cannot agree to the noble Lord's Amendment, though it undoubtedly would have the effect of making small holdings exceedingly popular, because it would exempt them from all Death Duties whatever. But I think it right in saying this to say, further, that this is not a matter with which this House is empowered to deal.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I have very few words to say upon the subject of this clause, which I shall ask your Lordships to omit from the Bill. I see nothing in the nature of a small holding which makes it different from other land in the country, and it seems to me that it would be very inconvenient, to say the least of it, that a fifty acre small holding should be taken off part of a farm and should rank as personal property, while the land over the hedge ranks as real property. It seems to me also that, supposing the land was re-sold to the original owner, the fifty acres re-sold to him would have become personal

1427
property, and it would be mixed up—part of the property would be personalty and part would be realty. That, I confess, to my mind would be a very inconvenient arrangement. And, if this Bill is to have a large effect, as the promoters hope it will — and I am sure I hope it will myself—there will be a very large portion of land throughout the country, part of which will be personalty and part of which will be realty—a state of things which, I think, everyone must admit would be most inconvenient. I will take the case of a small holding—and I fancy that those who propose this measure are against the sub-division of land—I will take the case of thirty acres, the owner of which dies intestate, and leaves a widow and four children. By this clause the widow would take ten acres and each of the four children would take five acres. That seems to me a state of things which is most undesirable. For these reasons I ask your Lordships to omit the clause from the Bill.
Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 11.—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that the framer of this particular clause had not in his mind an Act passed in 1890. The object of the clause is to make the piece of land divisible according to the Statute of Distributions, and to make it personalty subject to that Statute. I think my noble and learned Friend opposite introtroduced a Bill in 1890—which is now indeed an Act—by which, if an intestate estate does not exceed £500 in value, whether it consists of money or land, the widow takes the whole. I do not think that the person who drew this clause had that in his mind. According to the ordinary principles of law, wherever this clause applied the Intestate Estates Bill would be pro tanto repealed. I do not think that could have been intended. And certainly the operation of it upon small holdings would be very considerable indeed. Your Lordships are aware that the provisions with regard to the law of inheritance and land transfer, which I introduced into this House, indicate that I am not averse to devolution of property according to the Statute of
1428
Distributions; but, to introduce it in this way partially and as applicable only to particular pieces of land, seems to me an extremely undesirable thing. It is absolutely essential, I think, that the land should be sold, and, if sold, I do not see how the small agricultural holding is to be maintained.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I understand that the Act to which the noble and learned Lord refers does not apply to Scotland, whereas this Bill refers to the United Kingdom.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: A paper has been circulated to your Lordships by a Mr. Henry Oust, in which there is a heartrending description of a widow being deprived of all her property and becoming penniless, in consequence of her husband having died intestate, and the land passing to a nephew; but the person who drew up the paper appears to be quite unconscious of an Act that was passed the year before last by Lord Bramwell, which gives to the widow of every person who dies intestate, without issue, at least £500 from whatever property he may leave.
LORD HERSCHELL: I have not in my mind the exact provisions of the Act to which my noble and learned Friend refers; I do not know whether it provides only for the widow; but supposing there was no widow left, then of course the heir-at-law would take all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD HERSCHELL: However that may be, my Lords, certainly it is in the case of small properties that the change in the law which many have advocated seems to be desirable, because very great hardship arises when a person has invested all his savings in the purchase of a small piece of land, and at his death the whole of the land goes to one member of the family, the others being left absolutely without any provision; and it is in the case of these small properties that persons generally die intestate. Large owners of property generally dispose of their property by will, and therefore the person to whom it goes is indifferent; but I had occasion to observe, when I was a Law Officer, that in cases where heirs could not be found (and there were a very large number of such cases—it was those persons who had small properties who appeared to die in-

1429
testate. There is, therefore, this to be said in the case of such a provision relating to small holdings: that it is in the case of small holdings that the present law presses most hardly, and that if the system is unjust, it is in the case of small holdings that that injustice is most felt. That seems to me a great justification for having some such provision as this in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 negatived.
Clause 12.
EARL CADOGAN: I have merely a verbal Amendment to propose to this clause.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 34, to leave out ("or sell.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: There is one slight point to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention in Clause 12, line 30, which says that Sections 127 to 130 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act are to apply. I do not know whether it is clear that Section 130 is included, and I suggest that the word "inclusive" should be inserted after "130," because the section is a special one which provides for the appointment of an arbitrator to determine the price, and I do not know whether the noble Earl's attention has been called to the fact that Section 128 is not to apply when such land is built upon or used for building purposes. I imagine that there may be some buildings upon those small holdings, and I do not know whether that would rule them out of that section, and it is very important that it should not do so.
Amendment moved, in page 6, line 30, after ("thirty"), insert ("inclusive")—(The Viscount Galway.)
EARL CADOGAN: There can be no objection whatever to add the word "inclusive." It is a question whether it is necessary, but as a matter of fact the section, which applies to arbitration, is included. With regard to the other point, I will look at it before the Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13, 14, and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I will only detain you a few minutes in moving the Amendment that stands in my name, but I confess that I think it is a very important one. As the clause stands at present, the Council, having obtained land, may exchange it, or erect buildings on it, or execute any works to enable them to sell it without loss. When a small holding is let off near a town, in course of time the town may increase, and the small holding may be surrounded with buildings; or, the adjacent land being used for sanitary or other purposes, the holding may become useless as an agricultural holding. The County Council then have the power to sell, and by Sub-Clause 3 the right of pre-emption comes in, and they have to offer it to the original proprietor of the land or to those who have lands adjacent; but I think it is very improbable that the County Council, having acquired land at a fair agricultural rent, will ever offer it back to the original landlord at the same sort of rent; they are absolutely certain to ask for the value of it as building land or feuing land. I really think this is a thing which ought to be provided against, and that is the object of my Amendment. If it is accepted, it will have the effect of making landowners more ready to give facilities to the County Council for obtaining land for the purposes of this Act—that is to say, land near a town—whereas if the clause stands as it is, it will be a great hindrance in the way of giving facilities for establishing small proprietors at all. I trust the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved,
In page 7, line 11, to leave out Clause 16, and insert the following clause in lieu thereof:—" If a County Council are of opinion that any land which they may have acquired under this Act is not needed for small agricultural holdings they may sell or let the same, but they shall before doing so offer the holding for sale, first to the person or persons (if any) then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed, and then to the person or persons whose lands immediately adjoin the holding; and the County Council shall not sell or feu for building purposes land acquired solely for small agricultural holdings under this Act."—(The Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the alternative

1431
clause proposed by the noble Lord. So far as I understand him, his object is that in case of any land being, in the words of the marginal note, "unsold, superfluous or unsuitable land," the County Council should be compelled to sell the land back, either to the previous owner or to anyone else, not at its value at the time, but at its value when acquired. In the first place, the right of pre-emption to the owner from whose land the small holding was originally severed, and, failing him, to the owner of the adjoining land, is given by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, which is incorporated in the section; and as regards the provisions contained in the latter part of the noble Lord's clause, if those rights of pre-emption were not exercised grave complaints would arise if the County Council were debarred from realising the full value of their land. The clause as proposed by us contains provisions as to the exchange of lands and the erection of dwellings and the temporary management of the holdings, which the noble Lord's clause does not provide, and which are essential to the proper carrying out of the Bill. The clause as it stands also puts in the forefront the obligation to sell or let as small holdings any land acquired under the Act. All these provisions have been left out of the clause proposed by the noble Lord, and therefore I am afraid the Government cannot accept the clause which he proposes as an alternative.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Do I understand that before the County Council offer back the land to the original owner they may erect any buildings they like upon it, in order to increase its value? That I think would be a very serious thing.
EARL CADOGAN: The answer to that would cover a great many objections of a similar nature—namely, that as the County Council are responsible to the ratepayers, they are not likely to spend the money of the ratepayers in order to enhance the value of the land. It is quite true that under the clause they could do so, but I do not think any case has been made out against the clause on that account.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It may not be possible to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord
1432
opposite, but I think that one of the objects of the clause is a matter which does deserve the consideration of the House. The clause as it stands enables the County Council to buy land, and on their finding that the land is not suitable for agricultural holdings then there is nothing to prevent the County Council from putting it on one side, and, if it be in the neighbourhood of a town, ultimately using it for the purposes of building, just as any private owner might. I apprehend that that is not the intention of the Bill, which is to provide agricultural holdings, not to enable County Councils to purchase properties for purposes which might be termed speculative. Although the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment, I would ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he would not on their part introduce words which should provide that if the County Council find that the land purchased is not suitable for agricultural holdings, there should be some obligation upon the Council to re-sell the land, and that it should be re-sold at what its value was at that particular time, which probably would be a date not long before the re-sale. I think in that way you might meet an objection which undoubtedly does exist at the present time.
EARL CADOGAN: I think the point is certainly worthy of serious consideration, and I will consider it before the Report.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17.
EARL CADOGAN: The Amendments I have to propose are merely verbal, to make it more clear that different Committees may be appointed for different sales of holdings.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 34, to leave out ("the") before ("holdings") in each place where it occurs, and insert ("any.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the next Amendment stands in my name, and is rather an important one. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the constitution of the Committee under Clause 17, which is

1433
a very important Committee, because if your Lordships will turn on to page 8 you will see these words—
"In the construction of this Act reference to the County Council shall in their application to the powers so delegated include any such Committee";
and therefore for any such purposes the Committee is to be the Council. The provision of the clause is this: that where the County Council provide small holdings they may delegate the powers with regard to the adaptation of the land for holdings and the letting and management of the holdings, with or without restrictions, to a Committee, consisting of five persons, who are subsequently named. My first objection to that clause is that for the first time, so far as I know, Parliament ties the hands of the County Councils with regard to the number and composition of the Committee which is to represent the County Council. That, however, my Lords, is not my principal reason for objecting, which is that this Committee is to be limited to five. It is a Committee "consisting of"—which means "shall only consist of"—the County Councillor who represents the electoral division in which the holdings are situate, two other members of the Council, and two of the allotment managers. So that your Lordships will see at once that the locality in which the holdings are situate has the majority upon that Committee. But that is not the only objection, because it is not only probable, but it is extremely likely, that there will be small holdings in several different parts of the county, and therefore this Committee will vary in different parts of the county, because the three members, namely, the majority, would be different in different parts of the county. Then it may be said that the objections I have raised are met by the words "with or without restrictions." If the County Council delegates its powers to the Committee without any restriction, the Committee is omnipotent, and is for that purpose the Council; but if the County Council imposes certain restrictions upon the Committee, it places them in this ungracious position: that when any finding, which is the finding of the Committee the majority of which is nominated by the locality, wines up on Report, then the Council is placed in the invidious position of
1434
being obliged to override the finding of the Committee. The proposal that I have to make in lieu of that is a very simple one. I do not propose to do away with the representation of local feeling at all, because I propose to leave the County Councillor of the electoral division, and also to leave the two allotment managers as proposed in the Bill; I merely propose to change the words "consisting of" into "which shall include," which leaves it in the hands of the County Council—being instructed by Parliament to appoint those three men representing local interests—to appoint additional members of the committee as they choose, and does not restrict them as the Bill does to the number of two. That is the Amendment which I shall ask your Lordships to accept.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 35, to leave out ("consisting of") and insert ("which shall include"); leave out line 38.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, the objection that my noble Friend takes to the effect of the clause, as I understand, is that, inasmuch as the committee is to consist of two Councillors, and one County Councillor representing the locality to which the matter under discussion specially refers, and two allotment managers, therefore there will be on that committee always a majority of those possessing local knowledge. I am bound to say that I adhere to what I ventured to say on the Second Reading. I think it would be an advantage that we should encourage, as much as possible, local knowledge and influence in the provision of these small holdings, and I myself should be sorry to see any Amendment carried which would minimise that local influence on these committees to which the County Council is to delegate its powers. I may point out, moreover, to my noble Friend that the appointment of these committees is entirely optional, and to that extent he has not perhaps considered the power that the County Council has of protecting itself. If the County Council has reason to think that these local members would use their influence in a manner which would be objectionable, it is always in its discretion not to delegate its powers, and not to appoint a committee at all. I think the County Councils, therefore, are in a posi-tion

1435
tion to protect themselves, and in these days when we hear so much of the desirability of establishing Parish Councils, and of the strong desire that there appears to be to decentralise as much as possible the operation of bodies connected with Local Government, I am bound to say that I am strongly of opinion that the clause should be allowed to remain as it is. I trust therefore for these reasons my noble Friend will not think it necessary to press his Amendment. I think he will see that, with the special powers which are entrusted to the County Council, the serious results that he apprehends will not arise.
LORD BELPER: I hope the noble Lord will give way to some extent on this clause. It seems to me that the principle of the clause is totally different from the principle that is adopted in all other County Council committees, as to which the County Council have a discretionary power, according to the subject with which they have to deal, of appointing the number of members they may think desirable. The point of getting local knowledge is of course an extremely important one, but that is a practice which is largely adopted in the case of County Council committees. With respect to the Technical Education Committee, where local or special knowledge is required, they appoint sub-committees—at least we do—with gentlemen outside the Council to assist them on those special subjects. It is said also that this power is optional; but if the Council are to do the work properly they must appoint a committee. Dealing with land and selling land cannot be done by the Council as a whole. By this clause you say that the committee is to be limited to five members, and under all circumstances there is to be one County Councillor for the division and two members with local knowledge outside. I must say that I think more latitude should be given to the County Councils to appoint the number they require, and if the Amendment of the noble Lord below me is accepted, then they would still obtain the local knowledge that is absolutely necessary, and at the same time you would give the County Council that discretion which in the case of all other committees they already have. I think the clause as it
1436
stands would lead to great hardship and inconvenience.
*EARL STANHOPE: There is great force in my noble Friend's objection to the composition of this committee, but I think the opposition to this clause would be removed if the Lord Privy Seal would allow the addition of one very small word—namely, in line 35, to say that the letting and selling and value of holdings shall be delegated to a sub-committee. Then a sub-committee would not have unrestricted power to sell or manage holdings without reference to the authority of the Council; and inasmuch as there is a great preponderance of local members for the districts where the small holdings are to be provided by the Bill, it would be fair and right that there should be a sub-committee, and not merely a separate committee to manage these holdings.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will maintain the clause; I think the reasons he gave for it are very conclusive. Noble Lords will observe that it is not compulsory on the County Council. Certainly they will have to appoint some committee to do the business under the Act, but they win only delegate their powers, which is a totally different thing, if they appoint the committee under this clause. They can appoint a committee which can do a variety of acts to be afterwards sanctioned by the County Council, but this clause goes I think rightly further, and says they may delegate all their powers, so that the committee may be able to act without any reference to the County Council; then, having done that, no doubt this committee would be able to do whatever they thought right. But I apprehend that the County Council would not delegate their powers unless they had satisfied themselves that it was a right and proper thing to do. I do not see, therefore, any danger in the clause, and I think it would be found exceedingly expedient that the County Council should by the Bill be instructed, whenever they find that there are local committees in which they have confidence, to appoint them; and, if those local committees are to be efficient under the Bill, they must be composed essentially of local men; and, if the local men are to be swamped by members of the County Council from

1437
other parts of the county, I am certain that this clause will not work.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I am entirely in favour of what has been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I trust the Government will maintain the clause. I agree with the noble Lord as to the inconvenience of having a committee which will have to report to the County Council; it, might take some considerable time before conclusions could be arrived at, and I see no possible harm in appointing a Committee in the manner proposed to be done by the Bill.
THE EARL of FEVERSHAM: I am sorry I cannot agree with the noble Duke altogether. I do not think it would be advisable to delegate to any committee such large powers with regard to the transfer of land and so forth as this clause proposes to do. What would be the result? Perhaps some enthusiastic members of the Council would be appointed on the committee with more zeal than discretion, and the chances are that they might exercise their powers in an objectionable manner. I think the County Council should have complete control over the action of their committee, and it is a bad principle to allow any committee to act independently of the County Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know if I rightly understand my noble Friend, but I think he did not understand the precise issue that we are discussing. The question I understand is how is this committee to be constituted, —not whether there shall be a power of delegation or not. As to the question how this committee is to be constituted, I have great sympathy with my noble Friend in desiring to avoid the predominant influence of these theoretical persons; but it is precisely because there may be two or three of those persons who may put themselves upon this committee, and carry everything in their own way, that I should like to be consigned to the far better informed, and I hope tenderer mercies of the local people, who, at all events, would have the advantage of all the knowledge that their acquaintance with the locality would furnish. If you allow the committee of the County Council to swamp the local people, then you may be delivered into the hands of the
1438
very theoretical people that you are afraid of.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: After what has been said I will not divide the Committee; but I wish to point out that, what this clause does is to say for the first time, if the Council appoints a committee at, all, it must necessarily appoint a committee with only a certain number of the Council on it. I have never known any such proposal in any Local Government Act; but, after this expression of opinion, I shall not divide the Committee.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20.
LORD BASING: This clause contains the borrowing powers of the Bill, and it will be observed that the second line of the clause imports into it the provision of the Local Government Acts and other Acts which would require the consent of the Local Government Board before any money could be borrowed under this Act; which means that, after the County Council, to whom those large powers are entrusted, has appointed a committee and decided that the Act shall come into operation, and that the Petition shall proceed, and have gone on to negotiate with the landowner for the purchase of his property, they are to be pulled up and the whole proceedings are to be consequently delayed, and possibly set at naught, by the Local Government Board, acting through Inspectors who are very few, and whose authority in matters of this kind is not to be compared with that of the County Council to whom these powers are entrusted. And, my Lords, there is a security beyond that of the Government, Department—namely, the security that the money is to be borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at a low rate of interest to be secured in a manner satisfactory to them. I am a member of the Public Works Loan Commission, and, though I do not very frequently attend, I know enough of the Commission to know that they take care that money is advanced on proper security. Again, the Bill itself makes careful provision that, the money borrowed by the county shall not exceed

1439
a certain amount. Is it wise in this Bill, so secured in its operation, by entrusting to the County Council the policy of proceeding with it, to hang up the decisions at which they may have arrived, and even the negotiations which they may have entered upon, until an Inspector of the Local Government Board has gone down, we do not know after what delay, to examine into the situation and to say whether the Council may be permitted to borrow money or not? It seems rather a serious drawback to the action of the Bill and a reflection upon the policy which puts into the hands of the County Council a very new and important power, if, after all, they are to be hampered in carrying it into execution. I hope before the Report stage some attention may be given to this, and that, if possible, more direct communication between the County Council and the Public Works Loan Commissioners may be arrived at.
EARL CADOGAN: I have every faith in the discretion with which the County Council will exercise their powers. At the same time, I think, if the noble Lord will consider it, he will see that it is absolutely necessary that some check upon their borrowing powers should be enacted, as in this clause. No doubt it would to some extent delay the operations of the County Council. As my noble Friend has said, there would, I imagine, be a certain number of preliminary steps to be taken before the authority of the Local Government Body was sought; but, as the section is drawn, the intention is that it would be the duty of County Councils to apply to the Local Government Board for sanction before they can obtain any loan which they may require. It should be remembered that these loans may and will constitute debts which will have to be paid, or the interest on which will have to be paid, by posterity, and it is the duty of a public office like the Local Government Board to see that some limit is put to these debts being cheated, which our descendants will have to pay for without having any control over their being incurred.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have to move an Amendment, the object of which is to make it clear that the expres-
1440
sion "county elector" as used in Clause 5 includes a burgess of any borough whether a county borough or not.
Amendment moved, in page 10, lines 8 and 9, to leave out ("and the expression 'county elector' shall mean burgess"); after line 8 insert as a new paragraph: ("The expression 'county elector' shall include burgess.")—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22.
*LORD WATSON: Following the lines of Amendments just made, I have to move that the Amendments on the Paper should be made upon Clause 22.
Amendment moved, in page 10, line 30, after ("Scotland"), insert ("in lieu of subsections four and five of section six of this Act.")—(The Lord Watson.)
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD WATSON: I move to leave out, in line 33, "an annual feu duty or ground annual," and insert "a perpetual rent charge which shall be a real burden affecting the holding." I may explain my reason for proposing the Amendment. By constituting the charge a feu duty or ground annual you place the County Council in the position of superiors having a feudal estate which will endure as long as the feu duty is payable, and when it ceases to be payable there will remain what is called a mid superiority for the extinguishment of which no provision has been made. Instead of that I propose to strike out those wordsand to make the County Council mere encumbrancers, which brings the clause into harmony with the English clauses of the Bill.
Amendment moved,
In line 33, to leave out ("an annual feu duty or ground annual") and insert ("a perpetual rent charge which shall be a real burden affecting the holding.")—(The Lord Watson.")
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD WATSON: My Lords, I beg to move the other Amendments that stand in my name.
Amendments moved,
In line 38, leave out ("feu duty or ground annual") and insert ("rentcharge"); and in lines 40 and 41 leave out ("feu duty or ground annual") and insert ("rentcharge.")—(The Lord Watson.)
*LORD WATSON: My Lords, I have a further Amendment to move which is not on the Paper, in order to bring the clause into conformity with Clause 6 as it has now been altered in Committee. I move in the first line on page 11 after "and" to insert "shall either," and in the same line after the word "instalments" to insert "or principal"; in line 4 delete the word "and" and insert "or shall," and in the same line to delete the words "shall be repayable" and insert "be repaid."
Amendments moved,
In page 11, line 1, after ("and") insert ("shall either"), and after ("instalments") insert ("or principal"); line 4, delete ("and") and insert in lieu ("or shall"); and delete ("shall be repayable") and insert in lieu ("be repaid.")—(The Lord Watson.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, passed.
Clause 24.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any remarks on this Amendment, because the same remarks that I made upon Clause 11 would apply to this clause. This clause is, in point of fact, translating into the Scotch language what is English in Clause 11. I shall, therefore, ask your Lordships to omit Clause 24 of the Bill.
Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 24.—(The Duke of Richmond and 4 Gordon.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I take this opportunity of asking the Lord Privy Seal exactly how we stand with regard to Clause 11, which has been struck out, and this Clause 24, which is to the same effect. On a former night I understood the noble Earl to say that the Government thought Clause 11, as it stood, was defective, that it would require amendment, but that they were of opinion that with reference to the Privileges of the House it would not be possible to amend the clause here, and that the only course that could be taken was to throw out the clause, in which case possibly the other House might send up an amended clause. That being the case, and it being quite obvious to us on this side of the House that the clause was extremely defective,
1442
we could not support the clause as it stood; but I shall be glad to know whether I am right in supposing that the Government contemplate bringing back the clause to this House, if the other House agree to such a course, in any other form? Otherwise I think we should be disposed to submit an amended clause on Report, in order to get the opinion of the House upon it.
EARL CADOGAN: The noble Lord has stated accurately what I said the other day. It is difficult for me to give any direct pledge as to what will happen when the Bill returns to another place.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Of course.
EARL CADOGAN: I endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to give the arguments for the clause that were used in the other House, and then I proceeded to show how, in the opinion of the Government, when we came to consider the clause, it was impossible that it could be passed in its present form. I then also stated that we were advised that it was impossible for us to amend it so as to render it acceptable, or such as would be possible for the House to pass. Now with reference to what is to come I can only say, as I said before, that in our opinion it is absolutely necessary that the clause should be thrown out, inasmuch as it cannot be amended, and I have every hope myself, speaking individually, and I believe I may speak also for my colleagues, that, having sympathy with the object of the promoters of the clause, it may be possible that some clause may be provided which may be without the objections entertained to the present clause, and which may secure the object in view, without its being put into a form that it is absolutely impossible for us to adopt. Further than that we cannot go. We cannot amend the clause ourselves, but we hope that an amended clause will be sent back to us. That, I think, fairly and fully expresses the position we take up.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not quite apprehend the position of the Government in the matter. I wish to know whether the Government intend to propose an amended clause in the other House?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a question, I think, which had better be asked in the other House. The noble Earl will remember that the clause was not originally a Government clause; it was a clause brought up very late, and the structure of it is so faulty that I observe even the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) did not defend it. And the absurdities which would arise if it were passed into law must, I think, be evident to every lawyer. Whether it is possible to pass any clause, without much more careful investigation, which will produce the precise effect desired by the promoters of the clause—which, as I understand, is practically to protect the widow—I do not know. We do not pledge ourselves at all. I have not had an opportunity of communicating sufficiently with my right hon. Friend to be able to answer that question; but if the widow can be protected, without producing any of the terrible anomalies that this clause presents, I shall be very glad. I confess I object to the clause, not only on account of those anomalies, which would be very serious, but because I think the distinct effect of it as it stands now would be, as fast as you create the holdings, so far as intestacy operates, to sink them back into the masses of large properties around them; and that I do not think is a desirable object.
LORD HERSCHELL: It does not depend only on intestacy; the effect would be the same if a will were made. That is provided against by a previous provision, that whether by the intestacy, or will, or in any other way, a certain course shall be taken. Supposing the intestate left daughters only, the holding would be sub-divided at once, because the daughters would be co-parcellors, and one person would not succeed. All that is provided against by a previous clause. But, my Lords, inasmuch as it is not clear that the Government do intend to propose a new clause, I shall venture, on Report, to propose a clause in lieu of Clause 11, which has been struck out, and that will, of course, distinctly raise the question in a form upon which we can express our opinion.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 negatived.
Clause 25.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I move to leave out of line 36 the words "in the opinion of the Sheriff." I cannot conceive why the County Council are not fit and able to appoint a person to carry out these duties without the interference of the chief Law Officer.
Amendment moved, in page 11, line 3(5, to leave out ("in the opinion of the Sheriff.")—(The Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a matter which I really think should be left to the opinion of noble Lords from Scotland. The Amendment is one which, to the English lay mind, appears wholly unobjectionable, and I should be prepared to accept it; but I should be glad to hear the opinion of noble Lords from Scotland, especially that of my noble Friend (Lord Watson).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I confess that, upon looking at the matter first, I rather shared the opinion of my noble Friend behind me who has moved this Amendment; but, inasmuch as very important questions of law are to be decided, it is obviously very necessary that the person who advises the County Council in this matter shall be fully qualified, and a person of some experience in law. Therefore I am inclined to think that in the interests of the public, and to secure that everything should be done in a proper and legal manner, it is better to leave the words in the clause as they stand.
*LORD WATSON: I understand, my Lords, that the view taken by the noble Marquess whose Amendments I have moved to-day was that the effective operation of the Bill in Scotland, more especially of such clauses as may be in the future added to it, will depend very much upon the legal gentlemen who are employed to register titles under the Act, and that it will require on their part very special knowledge of conveyancing. I am not at all sure that the County Council, however fit they may be for other functions which they have to perform, are the best judges of the man best fitted to conduct these legal proceedings. If the conveyancing is to be properly conducted, and the Act carried out well, I think the precaution which the other House has taken, of re-

1445
quiring the opinion of the Sheriff so as to see that the person appointed for the purpose is well qualified, is a most useful adjunct of the Bill.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 25 and 2C agreed to.
Clause 27.
EARL CADOGAN: The Amendment I have to move is to postpone the coming into operation of the Act in order to enable the County Councils to make preliminary arrangements.
Moved, after Clause 27, to insert as a new Clause. "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 200.)

NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, when this Bill was before your Lordships yesterday, the noble Earl (Earl of Camperdown) raised certain objections to those provisions, which I promised I would refer to the Department for consideration, and I have brought some Amendments before the House which I hope and trust will meet the objections raised by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN": My Lords, I may say that I have seen the Amendments which have been prepared by my noble Friend, and am perfectly content with them; they effect the objects that I wish to see effected.
Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which is intended to supplement a measure which was passed two years ago, in order to protect life at sea, by diminishing the chances of overloading. That Act provided for the fixing of a load-line, which I believe has worked, on the whole, very satisfactorily; but it is found that the penalties imposed by the Act are not sufficient, really, for the purpose of enforcing it, and that they would be more effectually enforced by giving certain powers of detention to the Board of Trade. The Bill, which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time, has had the support of the President of the Board of Trade in the other House, and, although there were difficulties about some parts of it as originally introduced, I may say that it finally passed, in the form in which now ask your Lordships to read it a second time, with general assent. There is another provision in the Bill which has reference to the inspection of the food provided for sailors on board ship, so as to see that it is in a fit condition and not adulterated. That also is a matter that has been passed with the assent of those interested in shipping, as well as with the hearty and1 cordial support of those who have specially advocated the cause of the protection of those employed at sea, under circumstances in which it is impossible for them to obtain any complete protection for themselves, inasmuch as they are unable to provide other food for themselves if the food provided for them on board ship is of an unlit character. I trust your Lordships will have no difficulty in giving your assent to the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has, as one would have expected, correctly explained the provisions of the Bill, and I do not propose to offer any objection to it on behalf of the Board of Trade.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

FISHERY HOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, there is one Amendment I have to propose the object of which I feel bound to state to the House. The Bill itself provides for the constitution of a new Fishery Board to come into office on the 1st January next; the existing Fishery Board would naturally go out of office in October, and the effect of the Amendment is to secure that the present Board shall remain in office from October to January, so that there shall not be a gap between the expiry of their powers and the coming into operation of the new Board.
Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
FORGED TRANSFERS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALKALI, &c. WORKS BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 2a on Monday next.
BILLS OF SALE BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 189.)
CASUAL WARDS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Hartismere [L. Henniker]). (No. 190.)
GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan]). (No. 191.)
LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 192.)
NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The, Marquess of Salisbury). (No. 193.)
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan]). (No. 194.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 195.)
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 196.)
SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 197.)
WITNESSES (PUBLIC INQUIRIES) PROTECTION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 198.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 199.)
MARRIAGES ABROAD BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (BATHGATE WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ALLOTMENTS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTON FEN) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7.) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
COLONIAL STOCK ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
TELEGRAPHS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 202.)

MILITARY LANDS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Earl Brownlow). (No. 203.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.