Sitting of 30 November 1893

QUESTIONS.

  ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION WITH LIGHTHOUSES.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state what number of lighthouses on the coasts of the United Kingdom now have electric communication, and to what further number it is proposed to extend such communication?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The number of lighthouses on the coasts of the United Kingdom which have been provided with electrical communication is 22. This number includes Lundy

  89
  Island, Fair Isle, and the Gunfleet Pile Lighthouse. The Royal Commission on Electrical Communication with Lighthouses, &c, have recommended that communication be also extended to Caldy Island, the Tuskar and the Fastnet. As to any further extension, they have not yet reported so far as I am aware.

  THE IRISH LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the resolution unanimously passed by the Association of .Chambers of Commerce, at Plymouth, in September, respecting the efficient maintenance of the Irish lighthouse service; and whether he will introduce, next Session, a Bill to add mercantile men, selected by the Chambers of Commerce and Harbour Commissioners of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Londonderry, to the Board of Commissioners of Irish Lights?
  THE SECRETARY OK STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the questions addressed to him. The resolution referred to has been received, and has been communicated to the Board of Trade as the Department more immediately concerned.

  TRAINING COLLEGES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that at the recent examination of students for admission to Training Colleges very few . were admitted, not from any lack of scholarship, but solely for want of accommodation; whether there are very serious complaints, owing to the teachers being prevented from obtaining a normal training, not that they are unable to pass the admission examination, but that the Training Colleges cannot take them in; whether he is aware that the authorities of two Training Colleges in Glasgow are prepared to admit, free of cost to the State, from 20 to 30 additional students in each College if sanctioned by the Department; and whether he will authorise the admission of additional students in those Colleges that can take them?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): I am already in communication with the Training College authorities on this matter, with a view to the admission of additional students on the terms stated.

  SIR MORTIMER DURAND'S MISSION.
  SIR A. SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state to the House the heads of the agreement arrived at between the Ameer of Afghanistan and Sir Mortimer Durand at their recent Conference at Kabul?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.): As the Secretary of State has only received telegraphic summaries of the agreement arrived at, he is not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  SMOKING POSTMEN.
  MR. LONG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that no notification has reached the Post Office in Liverpool of the concession which it is believed has been made by the Department to the effect that postmen off duty, though in uniform, will be allowed to smoke; and if he will direct that the necessary instructions shall be forthwith forwarded?
  MR. A. MORLEY: A notification to the effect of the question was made in this week's Post Office Circular, which was issued on Tuesday last to Liverpool and all other Post Offices in the United Kingdom.

  DUBLIN MAIL CART DRIVERS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Dublin mail-cart drivers, employed by the contractor to the Government, are obliged to work 365 days in the year, with hours of labour ranging from an average of 14 to over 20 in times of pressure; whether the pay is 14s. per week; and whether those men are to be specially excluded from the provisions laid down in the Fair Wages' Resolution passed by this House?
  MR. A. MORLEY: At the request of my hon. Friend I have been looking into the case mentioned in the question, but I am not sure that the Dublin mail-cart drivers have been so hardly dealt with as is implied in the question. The men have been employed by the contractor, and are not servants of the Department, but I may say that a new contract has become necessary in consequence of the death of the contractor, which was reported to me only a few days ago; and I shall take care that the clause relating to wages now adopted in conformity with the Resolution of the House of Commons is inserted in the new contract.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH FLOATING LIGHTSHIPS.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what floating lightships now communicate with the Telegraph Department by electric cables; and whether it is intended to lay down electric cables to other lightships?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside): The work of connecting with the shore by electric cable the North Goodwin and the Kentish Knock Light Vessels is being proceeded with as rapidly as practicable. I hope they will be completed during the present financial year, and this, with the Gunfleet Lighthouse, will exhaust the amount placed at my disposal for this purpose.

  SLAVERY IN BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
  MR. J. PEASE (Nothumberland, Tyneside): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the alleged recent issue by the Sultan of Zanzibar of a Proclamation providing that slaves in the British Protectorate lying between the Rivers Tana and Juba, including the territory of Witu, might be inherited by the lawful children of the present owners, whereas by an Agreement made between the British Government, the Imperial British East Africa Company, and the notables of Witu, all the inhabitants of Witu were declared to be free, the status of slavery abolished, and the judicial administration to be in accordance with the Indian Civil and Criminal Code; whether the Indian
  92
  Code punishes with imprisonment or fine those who detain against his will any person as a slave; whether Her Majesty's Government are taking steps for the immediate abolition of the status of slavery in Zanzibar, Pemba, and all other British Protectorates; and whether there will be laid upon the Table of the House all Correspondence relating to this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): We are aware of the Proclamation; but experience has shown that the execution of the Agreement is at present impracticable. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Representative, the armed resistance which has been opposed by the natives to the British administration of Witu has been in a great measure due to it. Consequently, it has been provisionally modified. The effect of the Indian Code is correctly stated; but natives of Witu, not being British subjects, are not affected by that Code, under which the Company, according to the Agreement, was to administer justice as regards persons legally justifiable. No steps are being taken for immediate abolition of the status of slavery in the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, and recent experience has shown that an attempt to insist upon the emancipation of domestic slaves in Zanzibar would be attended with great disturbance and bloodshed. It is, therefore, advisable for the present to concentrate all effort upon the effectual prohibition of the Slave Trade, and this is being done. In answer to the last paragraph of the question, I have to say that Papers will be laid.
  MR. J. PEASE: I should like to ask whether, in the opinion of the Government, the Proclamation does not practically revoke the Agreement previously entered into between Her Majesty's Government, the East Africa Company, and the representatives of Witu?
  SIR E. GREY: The Proclamation does not really revoke the Agreement, but it modifies it. It should be borne in mind that the Agreement has never been enforced.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: May I ask whether, in his recent book, Captain Lugard has not said that, in his opinion and that of

  93
  Sir John Kirk, the highest authority on the subject, the time has come when the Indian Code might be introduced at Zanzibar, and that its non-introduction there was the cause of the continuance of the Slave Trade?
  SIR E. GREY: I have been told that that statement is in Captain Lugard's book, but I have not yet seen it. In all those questions the abolition of the status of slavery must depend on the development of the country. At Zanzibar there has been a Proclamation that all children born after a certain date will be free. Therefore, before not very many years slavery there must come to an end.

  SUDBURY SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the actuary of the Sudbury Savings Bank absconded on Monday, 23rd October, leaving a letter addressed to the Trustees stating that he had falsified the books for many years, which was discovered on the following day, and on examination of the pass books it was found that specific sums of money had been misappropriated; and can he explain why no application was made to the Justices for a warrant for his arrest until Thursday, 9th November, 16 days .after the actuary had absconded?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): I am informed that it was necessary to get in the pass-books and make a detailed examination of the bank-books before it was possible to specify the particular amounts which had been appropriated, which was necessary in order to lay a sworn information.
  MR. HOWELL: Were not the defalcations sufficiently well known without waiting for the books to be examined?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have given the House the information supplied to me.
  MR. HOWELL: I shall repeat the question.

  WORKERS IN WHITE-LEAD FACTORIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a workman who
  94
  applied to the Bethnal Green Guardians for relief, by reason of incapacity brought on by working in a white-lead factory, his wrists being rendered useless for work after so working for the space of six years; whether anything can further be done to lessen the unhealthy nature of such work and render white-lead factories less dangerous to the health of those who are employed in them; and whether the Factory Inspectors keep the Home Office fully informed as to the preventive measures necessary in such factories?
  MR. ASQUITH: The case to which my hon. Friend refers is one of a class which are, I fear, not uncommon, though happily less frequent than they used to be. With a view of ascertaining what improvements could be made in the Special Rules which regulate the white-lead industry, an exhaustive inquiry has been made by a Departmental Committee, who have visited various works in different parts of the country, and collected a mass of evidence. They are now preparing their Report for the information of the Secretary of State, and I understand that it will be completed in a few days.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: Is it intended to publish the evidence?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must see the Report before I decide that.

  DR. GRIGSBY'S APPOINTMENT.
  MR. BALDWIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Dr. William Ebenezer Grigsby has been recently appointed a Judge in Cyprus, and if he is, or has been, a member of the London County Council; whether he is aware that Dr. Grigsby is, or has been, a Director of the Solicitor's Governments Stock Investment Company, Limited, now in compulsory liquidation, and that he is about to be publicly examined by the Official Receiver in connection with what the Official Receiver describes as—
  "The reckless way in which the Company's funds were invested and used;"
  and whether the appointment, if made, can be suspended until after the public examination by the Official Receiver has taken place?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): When the Secretary of State appointed Dr. Grigsby to the post of District Judge in Cyprus, he was unaware that Dr. Grigsby was connected with any Financial Company. Subsequently I learned that he had been connected with the Company referred to. He has already left for Cyprus; but, if he should be required for examination by the Court of Bankruptcy, he will be required to return to this country for the purpose. Of course, in regard to this and to any other appointment, if facts at any time come to the knowledge of the Secretary of State which prove that an officer in the service of the Crown in the Colonies is unfit to discharge his duties, the Secretary of State will deal with the matter as the circumstances require.
  MR. DARLING: Will Dr. Grigsby have criminal jurisdiction in Cyprus; will he, for instance, have to try people for fraudulent misrepresentation?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I believe so.

  THE CASE OF ME. VESEY STONEY, J.P.
  DR. R. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has yet examined the papers which were sent to him for examination with reference to the dismissal from the Commission of the Peace of Mr. Robert Vesey Stoney, J.P. and D,L., of Rosturk Castle, County Mayo; and, if so, what is the result?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): This case is now engaging the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who will consider without delay the materials laid before him.

  THE UNEMPLOYED ON TOWER HILL.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the afternoon of Wednesday, 22nd November, between 2.30 and 3 p.m., the police, acting under the orders of Inspector Veasey, broke up and dispersed an orderly meeting of the unemployed, which was being held upon Tower Hill; will he state what were the reasons
  96
  which caused the police to act in this manner; and whether he will instruct the police not to interfere with orderly meetings on Tower Hill in the future?
  MR. ASQUITH: The meeting in question was not an orderly meeting. Three rival speakers attempted to address the crowd in competition with one another. The audience began to hoot; the would-be speakers struggled with one another and fell to the ground; and a free fight ensued. The police then interfered to prevent further disorder. The police never interfere with orderly meetings on Tower Hill, and the suggested instructions are unnecessary.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that one of the persons-described as speakers was a drunken man who was not in any way connected with the unemployed?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have had no reason to think that any of the speakers were connected with the unemployed.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE LISTOWEL UNION.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in February of last year the Guardians of the Listowel Union promoted a. scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages; that under this scheme a. certain number were to be built in the Glin Division; and that the sanitary officer has condemned the present dwellings in the said Division; and what action has been taken by the Local Government Board to carry into effect the wishes of the Guardians?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): In February last the Listowel Guardians-applied to the Local Government Board for confirmation of improvident scheme proposing the erection of 173 cottages in the Union, including 14 in the Glin Electoral Division. The sanitary officer had certified eight of the existing dwellings in this Division to be unfit for habitation. The Board's Inspector, after inquiry, recommended the erection of 99 cottages in the Union, including seven in the Glin Division, and on the 22nd instant the Board issued a Provisional Order embodying their Inspector's recommendation.

  THE INDIAN MINTS.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement in the Government of India Despatch, dated 20th September last, that, between the date of the signing of the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee and the date of the closing of the Indian Mints, the main features of the Committee's recommendations were known on the Continent and probably in London, whether the Secretary of State has taken steps to ascertain how such information was obtained?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has no means of discovering how The Frankfürter Zeitung obtained the information which it published on June 8, but he is satisfied, as the result of his inquiries, that the information was not divulged at the India Office.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: As to that question, may I ask whether larger quantities of silver had been exported to India to be minted than was necessary for the ordinary trade requirements; and whether, in consequence, the Government of India has experienced considerable loss, owing to the compensation paid in reference thereto?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Yes; but I cannot say how far the facts are related to one another in regard to cause and effect.

  SUJCIDE BY CARBOLIC. ACID.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increase of suicides from carbolic acid, he will instruct the coroners under his control, in their Returns, to state on the certificates which they send to the Home Office the name of the poison by which the suicide was effected, with a view to attracting public attention to the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have considered this matter, and see no sufficient reason for the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal.

  DERELICTS IN THE ATLANTIC.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the United
  98
  States Government has in readiness one of its vessels of war, the dynamite ship Vesuvius, to proceed as soon as possible to the principal passenger route on the Atlantic in search of derelicts, and that the United States Government is anxious--to obtain the co-operation of the British' Government in removing from this much frequented sea highway these most dangerous obstructions; and whether he-will make inquiry into the matter, and take immediate steps to facilitate so desirable an undertaking?
  SIR E. GREY: We have heard nothing from the United States on the subject, but Her Majesty's Ambassador is being instructed to ask whether the United States Government have taken any action or propose to do so.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a telegram from Belfast in the following terms has reached him:—
  "Brig Vera reached Queenstown last night.. Reported having met iron derelict bottom upwards, 48 45 north longitude, 10 35 west, 250 miles west of Fastnet. Most dangerous. Derelict in track Transatlantic liners."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I only received the telegram a short time ago. There is no means of directing inquiries, and I cannot do anything in the matter. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is in communication with the American Government through the Foreign Office with reference to this matter. I am sorry to hear the report, but I am not surprised, having regard to the large number of vessels missing.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman always wait for the American Government before he takes steps to remove dangerous wrecks?
  MR. MUNDELLA: This derelict has been met 250 miles beyond the Fast-net, and under those circumstances the Government can only deal with the matter in concert with other Governments. We must act in conjunction with the Admiralty. It is not expected the Board of Trade has a cruiser ready to start when these reports reach us.

  THE PORTDMNA DISPENSARY DISTRICT.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his atten-

  99
  tion has been called to the election of a medical officer to the No. 2 Portumna Dispensary District, in the Portumna Union, held in the Board Room, Portumna, on 4th November last; is he aware that on that occasion 11 votes were tendered for Dr. Keary and 11 for Dr. Eyre, and that objection was taken on behalf of Dr. Keary to the vote of Mr. Tener, agent of the Marquess of Clanricarde, on the grounds that Mr. Tener had not the statutable qualification to act or vote as member of the Dispensary Committee, as he had neither rating nor residence in the same; is he aware that the sole residence of Mr. Tener is "The Square, Loughrea," and is so set out in Thorns' Directory; that such residence is outside the dispensary district; that Mr. Tener vainly attempted to obtain a rating within the district to qualify to vote at this election; and that his sole pretension to a claim to vote is that he occasionally holds a rent office in the stables of the Marquess of Clanricarde, in Portumna; and if, under these circumstances, he will direct the Local Government Board for Ireland to reconsider their decision declaring the election a tie, with the view to ratifying the election of Dr. Keary, who had a clear majority of the qualified electors? I should like to explain that in putting this question down I gave the Marquess of Clanricarde his legal title of "most noble," but it was struck out at the Table, the Clerk explaining that he regarded it as ironical.
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MOBLEY): The Local Government Board inform me that the election resulted in a tie, as stated. An objection was lodged to the vote given by Mr. Tener for Dr. Eyre on the grounds mentioned in the question; but the Board having ascertained from the Clerk of the Union that Mr. Tener is a Justice of the Peace for the County of Galway and resides for a good portion of his time at Portumna Castle, he is, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, qualified to act as an ex officio Guardian of the Union, and, as such, as a member of the Dispensary Committee. The Board add that it is not necessary that Mr. Tener should be rated for the residence referred to, to qualify him for either of the offices.
  MR. SEXTON: As Mr. Fenner only attends at Portumna Castle as the agent or servant of the
  100
  most noble Marquess the owner of the castle, does the right hon. Gentleman concur in the view that such attendance gives a statutable qualification to vote as a member of the Dispensary Committee?
  MR. ASQUITH; That" is a question of some difficulty. I should like to have notice of it.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope we may regard the matter as not entirely closed.
  MR. BODKIN: When the right hon. Gentleman is inquiring, will he also ascertain if there is any castle at all at Portumna? Speaking from personal knowledge, I say that the castle has been burnt down.

  CHAPEL COLLECTIONS FOE THE IRISH EVICTED TENANTS.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that, at a collection made outside the chapel gates in Newcastle West, on Sunday the 26th instant, on behalf of the evicted tenants of Ireland, two policemen interfered with the collection; and whether the Executive will take steps to prevent interference by the Constabulary with a legal right?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Chief Secretary is informed that the police in no way interfered with the collection referred to. The constables passed the chapel gates, outside which the collectors were standing, at intervals of about half an hour; they were engaged at the time on ordinary town patrol duty, and it frequently happens that the Sunday part of passes the church at the same hour when no such collection is being made.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: Then by whose directions did the police stand close to the collecting table?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware that they did so.
  MR. SEXTON: I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to make use of such language to the police as will inform them that they are not entitled to interfere either by standing close to the table, or otherwise acting as to cause annoyance and embarrassment both to the collectors of, and contributors to, a perfectly legal fund.
  Later—
  MR. SEXTON (addressing the Prime Minister)said: It has pleased the Home

  101
  Secretary not to answer me, so I again venture, in the presence of the head of the Government, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to discharging what I humbly think is his manifest duty—namely, to instruct the police that they are not entitled to interfere in any way with the public collection of funds in aid of the evicted tenants in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have no cognisance of this matter, and must ask for notice.
  MR. SEXTON: Monday.

  THE UNEMPLOYED IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Boards of Guardians have power to purchase or rent land, not exceeding 50 acres for any parish, and to open workshops for setting destitute able-bodied persons to work, and to pay such persons reasonable wages for their labours; and whether a Circular, similar to that issued in England, has been sent to the Boards of Guardians in Ireland pointing out the necessity and utility of undertaking reproductive works to give employment where needed?
  MR. ASQUTTH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Local Government Board state that Irish Boards of Guardians have no power to take land for the purpose mentioned in the first paragraph of the question. As regards the second paragraph, the Local Government Board report that if the necessity should arise they will issue a Circular to Sanitary Authorities and Boards of Guardians in Ireland drawing attention to any exceptional distress or the condition of the poorer classes. The Board's Inspectors have general instructions to report in the event of distress arising in any of their districts, but up to the present the Board have not received a representation from any Inspector of that nature, excepting in one case which affects a very small area.

  GALLANT RESCUE BY FRENCH FISHERMEN.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called officially by the Mayor of Eastbourne to the gallant rescue by the captain and crew of the French trawler Avenir, from Boulogne, of four
  102
  fishermen in a boat from Eastbourne 20 miles off Beachy Head, in the storm on the 18th instant, when, after struggling for 11 hours in a heavy sea, she finally succeeded in taking them on board, and ultimately landed them at Newhaven; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of bestowing some mark of public recognition of such conduct on the part of brave men belonging to a friendly Power?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received a letter from the Mayor of Eastbourne, drawing attention to the gallant rescue by the crew of the French trawler Avenir of four English fishermen who were driven out to sea during the recent gale. I have also received the statements of two of the rescued men, and I am now considering the best means of publicly recognising the gallant and humane conduct of the French fishermen.

  MILITIA TRAINING.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the increase of Metropolitan pauperism and dearth of employment, it would be possible to relieve the labour market and assist recruiting by calling out for training, during the winter months, Militia battalions belonging to the Metropolis and other large congested districts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): There are several reasons why it is impracticable to train the Militia in the Winter. The days are so short and the weather so uncertain that drill and musketry instruction cannot be carried out properly. The temperature does not allow of encamping, and there is not sufficient barrack accommodation. The money voted for training has been spent, and without a Supplementary Vote there would be none for a second training in the same financial year.

  WAGES AT WOOLWICH.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the minimum rate of wages at Woolwich is 19s. and that at Purfleet 18s.; and whether he can assimilate them, taking into consideration the fact that the work done is the same, and that in reply to the Woolwich deputation a minimum of 19s. was admitted?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL, Hanley): The minimum rate of wages to Ordnance Store Department labourers at Woolwich has been raised to 19s. 6d. At other stations, where the cost of living and the local rates of wages are less, our rating is relatively lower, and it is not proposed to increase to that rate the wages now paid at Purfleet. Of course, the amount of wages is exclusive of the advantages and privileges which, in the case of Ordnance store labourers, cost more than 1s. per week.

  THE ENGINEERS' DEPARTMENT OF THE POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the labourers employed in the Engineers' Department of the Post Office Telegraphs receive £1 4s. a week in London when first engaged, but only 18s. in the country parts of Ireland; if 1s. 6d. a day for expenses is given to the London labourers when sent out of London, and nothing is given to the Irish telegraph labourers when employed at a distance from their homes; if railway passes to enable such men to visit their families are less freely given in Ireland than in London; and would he endeavour to raise the condition of the Irish telegraph labourer until it somewhat more nearly approaches the superior condition of his Metropolitan brother?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second, it is the case that 1s. 6d. a day extra is given to men sent temporarily out of London when they cannot conveniently return to their homes at night. In Ireland it is rarely the case that a man has to be absent at night; but when the circumstances seem to call for higher pay, a suitable addition is made to the man's wages. I am not aware that railway passes are given in London to enable labourers to visit their families. As to the last part of the question, the conditions in London are different from those in the country parts of Ireland; and I have had no representation made to me that the wages in Ireland are insufficient.

  THE EDITOR OF THE "COMMONWEAL."
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the
  104
  Government have considered the question of directing a prosecution for inciting to murder against Samuels, the editor of The Commonweal; and whether he is aware that such a prosecution was instituted against Johann Most, editor of The Freiheit, by the Governments 1881; that the editor of that journal was convicted and sentenced (after a judgment against him by the full Court) for inciting to the murder of persons even outside Her Majesty's Dominions; and that the Grand Jury in that case presented that incitements to the assassination of Foreign Rulers and others abroad is brutal and un-English, and should always be rigorously dealt with by authorities here?
  MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question. The Government are aware of the facts stated in the second paragraph. The wisdom of taking legal proceedings in matters of this kind depends largely upon the circumstances of the particular case, and I do not think it expedient to say more than that the question engages the attention of Her Majesty's Government, who will take such steps, if any, as appear to them to be necessary in the public interest.
  MR. DARLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that two days ago he stated that he had taken advice upon the matter. Was that the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and was the right hon. Gentleman still acting upon it?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a question I do not feel called upon to answer.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government are prepared to act upon the presentment made by the Grand Jury in the case of "The Queen v. Most," tried when the right hon. Gentleman was in Office in 1881, that such cases of incitement to murder as those in The Commonweal should always be rigorously dealt with by the authorities in this country?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have been requested to reply to the question. The presentment in 1881 of a Grand Jury in a totally different case has nothing whatever to do with this matter. As I stated before, the action of the Government in cases of this kind must depend upon the particular circumstances of the special case.

  ALLOTMENTS IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government would, early next Session, introduce a small equalising Bill, which would enable the Irish labourer and others to obtain those facilities for holding small plots of ground which are at present, or will be at the close of the Session, enjoyed by the same classes in England, through the various Allotment Acts and Allotment Clauses?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian): This question would be more properly answered by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, indeed, wishes to reply to it; and, therefore, I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to defer it till Monday, when my right hon. Friend will be in his place.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is the intention of the Government to make provision in the next financial year for the commencement of the proposed new buildings at the South Kensington Museum?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): The question has not yet been considered.

  CHARGE OF PROSELYTISING IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give the result of the inquiry into the case reported in the Dublin Daily Express of the 21st November, where it was alleged that a Protestant pauper woman, aged 104 years, was, when lying at the point of death, received into the Roman Catholic Church by the Rev. Dr. Langan, Administrator of St. Mary's, Athlone, on Sunday, the 5th of November?
  MR. BODKIN: Is it not a fact that the rev. gentleman was sent for by the woman, and attended at her request?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): Inquiry is being made, and pending the result of it my right hon. Friend regrets
  106
  that he is not in a position to announce what further action, if any, will be taken.

  LESSON BOOKS IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether teachers under the Irish Board of Education are restricted to the use in their schools of one series of reading or lesson books, while teachers under the English Board may select their reading or lesson books from several different series; whether the amount of literature required from monitors and monitresses at the examination to qualify them for the position of the lowest class of teacher is the same as that required from an Assistant Inspector, including all the lesson books (exclusive of the primer), in all 1,346 pages, and whether the monitresses have in addition to prepare for this examination 278 pages of the girls' reading book, which is an optional extra in the schools; is the course for the corresponding examination in England very much lighter, and will he grant a Return showing the percentage of marks obtained on this, as compared with the other subjects at the Irish teachers' examination, July, 1892; has his attention been directed to the inconvenience of the existing system by which, when a monitor or monitress fails in examination, the failure is punished by immediate dismissal, no new appointment is made for a year, and the school is, during that period, deprived of the necessary assistance to which it is entitled under the Rules; will he have inquiry made regarding the several grievances that have been suggested with a view to their mitigation or removal; and whether, having regard to the instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors for the English Code, 1893, with respect to the requisites for school reading books, the existing Irish series can be revised and alternative books provided for selection, in accordance with the English system?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): It is open to any manager to submit for consideration of the Board of National Education, in accordance with the terms, of Rule No. 91, any lesson books proposed to be used in his school, and any such books, if free from matter at vari-

  107
  ance with the principles of the system, and not otherwise unsuitable, may be approved. Several books not included in the Board's published list have been sanctioned as reading books for classes in national schools. The questions for examination of monitors are of a comparatively simple character suitable for young persons of their age, position, and education, and, although taken from the same general course, those proposed for the examination of Inspectors' assistants are relatively different. The English and the Irish courses do not correspond, and cannot be compared. A Return of the percentages asked for regarding all the monitors examined last July would be tedious to prepare, and would involve considerable expenditure in time and money. If the circumstances of the school warrant it, the successor to a dismissed monitor is appointed from the 1st of July next following. There is no Rule and no practice that a year must elapse in all such cases. I see no sufficient grounds for the inquiry suggested, and I am informed that the Irish national school books have been constantly under revision, and, as already pointed out, the choice of managers is not limited to those books.

  THE PROGRESS OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the propriety of asking the House to suspend the Rule putting an end to contested Business at 12 p.m. during the present Session, and also that putting an end to contested Business on Wednesdays at 5.30, and to pass a Resolution to commence Business on four days in a week at an earlier hour?
  The following questions relating to the same matter also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, to expedite the Business of the present Sittings, he will consider the advisability of asking the House to sit on Saturday next and the following Saturday, if necessary, and also of asking the House to apply the Wednesday Rule, as to the commencement of Business, to two or more days in the week besides Wednesday and Saturday?
  MR. BARROW: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the present condition of Public Business and the general desire of Members to bring the work of the Session to a termination, he will move the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, and also take Saturdays during the remainder of the Session?
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him if he is aware that an unprecedented number of Members are invalided in consequence of overwork, and will he take such steps as may be necessary to shorten the hours of attendance in the House, and to put a reasonable restriction upon the length of the Session?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I have to say that we do desire to put a reasonable restriction upon the length of the Session. At the same time, we feel that the paramount consideration in determining the length of the Session, so far as our conviction and advice go, is the transaction of the necessary Business. The question is, how far the transaction of that necessary Business, which we have endeavoured to keep within bounds by severely discouraging, as far as we have been able, the intrusion and invasion of extraneous matter—the question is how soon the necessary Business can be brought to a termination. I will answer the other questions—those of my hon. Friends—by saying that to-morrow the Cabinet will meet, and they will consider the state of Business, and whether it is their duty to make any proposal to the House with a view to greater expedition. But with regard to the immediate future of the Bill now before the House, what we venture to hope is that to-night and to-morrow night may be distinguished by more effectual despatch than has been the case on one or two recent occasions. If that should be so, we will not make any immediate proposal; but undoubtedly if the progress of Business to-night and to-morrow night should be very tardy, we shall feel it our duty to propose to sit on Saturday.
  MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square): I should be out of Order if I made any comments, in the absence

  109
  of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, on what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that we have already passed 206 lines of the Bill, of which 76 are new lines. Although the despatch may not have been rapid, at the same time the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will, I think, acknowledge that there has been every desire on the part of the House—[Cries of "Order!"] I know I am only speaking by the indulgence of the House. At the same time, both sides of the House will be anxious that this matter should be conducted without any heat, and that no measures should be necessary which would rouse that feeling of controversy seen on several other occasions. I only thought it right to indicate that up to this time, I think, no complaint can be made, nor do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to make any complaint of the conduct of the Opposition. Now, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the East India Loan Bill, which stands as the second Order of the Day on the Notice Paper, to which I hope I may be permitted to refer. I quite understand that it is one of those Bills which the Government are entitled to bring forward under the reserve made by the Prime Minister. I wish to ask when we are to have an opportunity of discussing this very large measure. It will be quite impossible to pass it sub silentio. I would remind the Prime Minister that when similar Bills have been introduced on previous occasions they have been made the first Order of the Day, when important matters connected with them have had to be discussed; and on one occasion three days were occupied in the discussion of the East India Loan Bill. There are many extremely important matters connected with this Bill which we have to discuss, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter his consideration. A march was stolen upon us last night. These Bills are usually best discussed at length in Committee before the Resolution is passed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give the House an assurance that ample opportunity shall be given for the discussion of this Bill.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rather demur to the opinion of my right hon. Friend opposite that the preliminary
  110
  Committee is the opportunity usually taken for the discussion of a Bill of the nature of the East India Loan Bill, and certainly I do not agree that a march was stolen on the House last evening. We thought it our duty to get through this preliminary proceeding. We quite agree that an opportunity should be given for the purpose of the discussion of the measure, and we shall bear it in mind when we come to propose the Second Reading of the Bill.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the paragraphs in to-day's newspapers giving an account of an interview with the hon. Member for Woolwich are correct?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as I have seen the paragraphs they are not correct in many particulars, and I cannot account for their appearing at all, as the conversation which they profess to describe was a purely private one.
  COLONEL HUGHES: As I waited upon the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of a public meeting I felt it to be my duty to report what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I am not in the least degree responsible for the paragraphs in question or for their accuracy. I admit that the account is not an accurate one in all particulars, and that there is no foundation in what I reported for the error it gives currency to.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)

    COMMITTEE.
    [Progress, 29th November.]
    [TENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 8 (Additional powers of Parish Council).
    Page 6, line 26, sub-section (d), omitted.
    Question proposed,
    "That the words, as amended, 'Where they can do so without interfering with the rights of any Water Company, Conservancy Authority,

    111
    Sanitary Authority, Local Authority, Corporation, or person to utilise any well, spring, or stream within their parish and provide facilities for obtaining water therefrom,' be there inserted."— (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    After the word "person," to insert the words "or by agreement with any such company, authority, corporation, or person."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that in reference to his Amendment, the discussion upon which was commenced the previous afternoon, it only proposed to give the Parish Council power by agreement with any persons interested to utilise wells, springs, or streams, for the benefit of the parish. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill stated, very much to his surprise, that the Parish Council would have no power to make any agreement, and if that were so he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the use of the clause at all. If they were not to be allowed to take wells, springs, or streams, either compulsorily or by agreement, he did not see that the clause possessed any value. Many of these springs and streams were situated on private property; and the owners would be very pleased to allow the locality to have the benefit of them so long as their rights had due recognition. He knew himself of a spring in one country parish sufficient to supply the whole district with water. It was situated on private property, and when other springs and wells in the neighbourhood were dried up, this spring was still available, and he had seen as many .as 15 or 20 water carts waiting their turn to get water, by the permission of the owner. Now, no doubt the owner would be only too glad to arrange with the Parish Council for the improvement of the road leading to the spring and to continue to allow the people to have the advantage of the water, but he would want his own right to the water recognised to safeguard him from the risk of an interference with his rights of property, and so under the Bill as framed he would be induced to prohibit the people getting the water rather than run
    112
    any risk. But if the Parish Council was empowered to make agreements it could come to terms with him, and secure the benefit of the water for the parish. The Amendment, he ventured to assert, could do no harm; it was perfectly permissive, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): I have carefully considered the advice I have received from competent advisers, and the result has been to strengthen the view I expressed yesterday that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I hope the Committee will see the force of the considerations which influence the Government. They do not intend to make the Parish Council the Water Authority; the duty of supplying a district with water rests with the Rural Sanitary Authority, which it is hoped will, with the assistance of this House, be replaced by the District Council. Whether it be called a Rural Sanitary Authority or a District Council, it is to be the Water Authority of the district. The moment a similar responsibility is conferred upon a Parish Council there will be a conflict of jurisdiction, which will involve friction and expense. We have no intention of giving a Parish Council power to erect waterworks. I still adhere to the phrase that has been used about the village pump. We believe that there are a large number of villages in which there is an available supply, the proper utilisation of which, being the business of everybody, is not attended to by anybody. My hon. Friend has misconstrued what I said about the Parish Councils powers in this matter. I did not say they were not to come to agreement with the owners of the water, which, of course, they must do; but I said that it was inexpedient to give them any power of paying, because then the owners would say, "You can and you ought to pay us so much." I want to leave the matter to voluntary arrangement, in which it would be easy for the landowner to guard his private rights, by laying down conditions on which he would grant the use of the water. We must, there-

    113
    fore, ask the Committee to accept the Clause as it is drawn.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have argued against his own Amendment. The Parish Council could not utilise any well, spring, or stream without laying down pipes, erecting cisterns, and incurring expense. Why put in this section at all, if it were a purely voluntary matter? If no money was to be spent by the Parish Council the clause was quite unnecessary.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was unconvinced by the reasoning of his right hon. Friend. To his mind the arguments adduced were altogether inadequate. In many villages there were neglected supplies of water running to waste. In some cases there were streams running by the roadside, and all that would be necessary would be to place a basin in which to catch the water. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind the doing of these simple acts by the Parish Council, but he was bound to point out that none of them could be done without interfering with the rights of someone, and rights could hardly be touched in this way without the payment of money. It surely was inconsistent to expect a Parish Council to do what was required and not to empower them to incur the necessary expense.
    SIR R. PAGETreminded the right hon. Gentleman that there was no such thing as a water supply which did not belong to somebody, and, therefore, if the Parish Council had no power to come to an agreement it would be unable to do anything at all. Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what good the clause was as framed?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have already fully explained the matter. I think the Government may be trusted not to evince any desire unnecessarily to restrict the powers of Parish Councils. We fully recognise that before the Parish Council can do anything there must be an agreement with the owner of a water supply, but we think it undesirable to insert these words in the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. T. FRYsaid, he desired to make the clause still more clear by inserting words to provide that the rights of a Water Company should not be interfered with so long as it was fulfilling its Parliamentary obligations. The Amendment was approved by an influential Association formed for the protection of the interests of Provincial Water Companies, and he thought it was one well calculated to safeguard those interests.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    After the word "person," to insert the words, "And subject to such restriction as is by Section 52 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' imposed on a Local Authority."—(Mr. T. Fry.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not think these words are necessary, for we have sufficiently protected the companies.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. PERKSsaid, the object of the Amendment which stood in his name was to make the village pump really free, and to prevent the Parish Council constituting itself in any way whatever an authority for the sale of water.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There is no intention of allowing the Parish Council to levy a water rate.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    In line 4, at end, insert "without making any charge therefor."—(Mr. Perks.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped no such limit would be placed on the action of the Parish Council. There might be cases in which it would be possible for a small sum to acquire a good water supply, and surely the Parish Council ought to have the means of defraying such an outlay.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he too thought the Parish Council should have power to make a charge to defray any expenses it might incur.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The intention of the Government is that the Parish Council shall not levy water rates.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR R. PAGETsaid, he wished, in the absence of the hon. Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey, to move the omission of Sub-section (e), which gave power to deal with any pond, pool, open ditch, drain, or place containing, or used for the collection of, any drainage, filth, stagnant water, or matter likely to be prejudicial to health. He was very much afraid that this provision would give rise to inconvenience and friction by enabling one authority to interfere with the work of another. Section 91 of the Public Health Act entrusted the duty of dealing with the matters mentioned in the subsection to the Rural Sanitary Authority, and would it not be better, instead of the words adopted by the Government, to adopt the phraseology of that Act? They did not want to have two authorities engaged in doing the same work.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (e).—(Sir R. Paget.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (e) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The object of this sub-section is to enable the Parish Council to deal promptly with trifling nuisances which might exist in the parish; with small matters, which it would be difficult to get the Rural Sanitary Authority to deal with. It is not a very large power, and I do not believe it would create any conflict of jurisdiction. It would, on the contrary, prove a cheap and effective mode of at once abating petty nuisances.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, they did not want complications or difficulties to arise between two authorities, neither did they wish two bodies to deal with exactly the same subjects. He agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be better to take the words of the Public Health Act, the definition of which was much more clear.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: We want to avoid in any way interfering with the jurisdiction of the Rural Sanitary Authority. If these small nuisances are
    116
    left to be dealt with by that authority it would have to send down an Inspector, notices would require to be served, and the matter might have to be laid before the Justices and an order to abate obtained from them. We want to get rid of all that complicated and expensive machinery and let the Parish Council deal with small matters, such as the filling in of a ditch. By all means do not touch the jurisdiction of the Rural Sanitary Authority, but do let the Parish Council get rid of temporary and casual nuisances.
    SIR R. PAGETsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misapprehended the object of the Amendment. They did not want to prevent the Parish Council dealing with these small nuisances; all they wanted was to make the statute clear, and prevent any chance of the Rural Sanitary Authority and the Parish Council doing one and the same thing.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think if we take the course suggested by my hon. Friend, and embody in this clause the words he suggests from the Public Health Act, we shall only create opportunities for friction and litigation.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he saw no power in the clause under which the Parish Council could enforce its order for the abatement of a nuisance.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is the very essence of our position. We do not want in such cases the complicated machinery for making and enforcing orders.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, it seemed to him to be necessary that some machinery should be provided. They ought, for instance, to ensure that industries were not vexatiously interfered with.
    COMMANDER BETHELLconsidered that the words of his hon. Friend's Amendment invited the Parish Council to enter on private property in the matter of assessment, and things of that sort. He, therefore, preferred the words of the Government.
    MR. DODDthought the President of the Local Government Board would help them, if he would tell them exactly what the words "deal with" meant. It was uncertain whether they meant the right to go on the land of a. person or not. The Committee did not intend to give the right to go on to

    117
    private property, and the question was whether they should not say so, otherwise there might be litigation. He suggested that words might be inserted which would make it perfectly certain that "deal with" was not intended to give any right to go on to private property.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, unless they were dealing with what was known as "no man's land," which one did see rare instances of, the matter was scarcely worth considering in a Bill like this. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was in error in saying there might be a pond or open ditch, or some kind of nuisance for which nobody was responsible. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Nobody to put the law in force.] They always understood there was an Inspector of Nuisances. If there was no such person, and if there was a difficulty in bringing proceedings in respect of a nuisance, which was a danger to the health of the public, then the sooner the whole power which regulated the sanitary arrangements of the rural districts was placed on a different footing the better. What they should avoid was the creation of any conflict of jurisdiction. If they were to give Parish Councils sanitary jurisdiction, let them say so at once; but if they entrusted these sanitary regulations to others, he did not think they should be fettered by the competing jurisdiction of irresponsible Parochial Authorities.
    MR. HANBURYsuggested the addition to the Amendment of the words "in any highway or public place." The hon. Gentleman clearly did not wish this right to apply to private property. It would not do to give the Parish Councils these powers, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment in this direction.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he supposed they were to understand from the President of the Local Government Board that this was merely a permissive clause, and that nothing could be done unless with consent. If that was the meaning it ought to be stated. If, on the other hand, there were powers to take legal proceedings they ought to be stated. The Parish Council might order a man to remove a nuisance and on his declining might get it done themselves and take proceedings which would run them into
    118
    difficulties. As the provision stood at present nobody could tell its meaning, and it ought to be clearly stated whether the Parish Council had any legal powers.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not propose to give any compulsory powers; I do not propose to give, what I may call, any sanitary jurisdiction, but what I propose to give is the power to deal with a nuisance, not by ordering it to be removed but by draining, cleansing, covering it, or otherwise preventing it from being prejudicial to health. It is an existing nuisance they are to have the power to deal with. I quite admit that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman should be cleared up, and I think the best way to deal with it would be to insert after "interfering with," the words "any private right or." If the Committee will accept that I will at once put these words in.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as amended, agreed to.
    MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet) moved to omit Sub-section (f),
    "To acquire any right of way, easement, or other right, whether within or without their parish, the acquisition of which is beneficial to any inhabitants of the parish, and."
    The point he wished to raise was a different one from that involved in some of the other Amendments which followed his, and therefore he did not wish to stand in the way of hon. Gentlemen in anything he was about to say. What he wished to ask the Committee was whether it was desirable in this Bill to give power to deal with, in any shape or form, rights of way, easements, or other rights which might be attacked. He dared say many Members of the Committee like himself had had occasion to deal with these questions both as interested parties and also judicially as Magistrates carrying out the provisions of the Statute. He could see no earthly reason for the Parochial Authorities being charged with any responsibility in connection with footpaths except so far as it might be necessary for the Parish meeting or the Parish Council to assume functions which, under existing Statutes, belonged to the Vestry. He understood that for all practical purposes the Parish Council or the parish

    119
    meeting occupied the position which the Vestry hitherto had occupied. and that any power or initiative which formerly devolved upon the Vestry was now, under the Bill, placed in the hands of the parish meeting or Parish Council. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose in this sub-section? He was afraid it was not free from that ambiguity which had characterised so many of its predecessors. Nobody seemed to know what was meant by the sub-section, or what object the Government were aiming at, and even among his learned Friends who had great experience in the administration of the law, as well as in the construction of Statutes, the widest misapprehension prevailed as to what powers were conferred by this sub-section. What was intended by the right to acquire any right of way? He had heard it said that it might be held to include a right actually to create a right of way. That, he thought, would be almost too absurd, but he feared that those Members of this House who expressed dread upon that subject would share the opinion which a great many who were not experts in the law would also be disposed to entertain. He thought anybody who had read the construction of the Act would know perfectly well that by acquiring a right of way it must be already an existing right of way.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was going to accept an Amendment on this subject. There was no creating a right of way unless the person owning the land agreed with the Council.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, what he objected to was to pressure being brought to bear on the Local Authority to embark into purchase or enter into agreement with the owners of the land with a view to opening up paths or rights of way which the owners were perfectly well able to do without the intervention of Parliament. In the past rights of way were protected and safeguarded by the most minute precautionary provisions in various Statutes. These precautions were very elaborate. Before any interference could take place with an existing right of way what would be a parish meeting was to be held; application had to be made to the Surveyor of Highways, who had to apply to the Church wardens, for the summoning of a Vestry meeting.
    120
    That, of course, under this Bill would be the parish meeting. The path which it was proposed to divert or alter had to be inspected by two Justices of the Peace, who had to give their certificate, and the Act of Parliament prescribed with great minuteness that the certificate should state that the substituted path was either nearer or more commodious or convenient. The rights of the public were most jealously guarded by the existing Statute, and no person could interfere with the existing right appertaining to all Her Majesty's subjects without all these precautions being observed, and every opportunity being afforded to every person interested to offer opposition. The publication on four successive Sundays upon the church door was to follow the issue of the certificate by the Justices of the Peace, which enabled any person—who need not necessarily be a ratepayer—who entertained objection to the diversion or alteration suggested, to avail himself of his legal remedy; and when, in the course of time, after publication in the newspapers of the district, as well as publication on the church doors, it became an order available for consideration before the Quarter Sessions, there was then a further period after the publication of the order of the Quarter Sessions, during which appeal could be laid. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could not deny that the law, as at present constituted, afforded the utmost protection for public rights, and did not enable them to be over-ridden, even by the most grasping and unreasonable person, without the fullest opportunity being afforded to every inhabitant, not only of the parish, but of the district around, to enter a protest and see justice done. What did the President of the Local Government Board propose to do by this clause? As far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the right, first of all, of acquiring power as to a right of way if it existed. What, in the name of fortune, was the object of acquiring what existed already? If it was to create an absolutely new right, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was embarking on a very dangerous ground. The greatest jealousy existed as to the stopping up of paths or highways, or the creation of any rights which might interfere with the privacy appertaining

    121
    to dwellings or private property. This clause would have a tendency to promote the acquisition of non-existent so-called rights of way. That was to say, what was not an existing right of way could be converted into one under this clause. Under these vague words, what was not a right of way now could be acquired by the Parish Authorities, and converted into a right or way. That was trenching on extremely dangerous ground. They were told that this was not compulsory, but only by agreement. He had a vague suspicion that, perhaps at some advanced hour in the morning, in some future Session, a short Act of a few lines might be passed to say where the word "may" occurred in any Statute of this kind, the word "shall" should be hereafter read. Therefore, he had a suspicion that if the words in this clause were inserted on the pretext that for the moment they were only permissive and did not involve the exercise of compulsory power, such power of compulsion would be subsequently obtained. He could not see the slightest ground for the addition of the words of this sub-section. There was ample provision as the law now stood for the protection of all legitimate rights, and the interposition of a new authority with the creation of fresh obligations would be a dangerous course for them to embark upon. He begged to move the omission of the sub-section.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (f.)—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (f) stand part of the Clause."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)thought that the hon. Gentleman was under some misconception as to the use of the word "acquire." They had already passed a clause in which the word occurred twice, and it was found not only in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but in other Statutes. To acquire certainly did not mean to create. To acquire meant to get. As his right hon. Friend had already said, they did not give compulsory powers, but power to acquire, by agreement, any right of way. Until a right of way was acquired, and acquired by agreement, it had no existence; but when it was acquired, it sprang into existence.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHconsidered that, as the acquisition of the rights of way was to be by agreement only, the proposal of the Government would be perfectly harmless, and he hoped on that understanding they might not be called upon to discuss it.
    MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)said, that there was nothing more fruitful of disputes in the country than matters of rights of way; and when the Solicitor General said they could acquire a right of way, like acquiring buildings or land, it was a very different way of using the word. They acquired the former by buying them; they acquired a right of way by using it.
    SIR J. RIGBY (interposing)said, the public, it should be remembered, could not acquire a right of way otherwise than by dedication. An individual, of course, might acquire a right of way by "user," and with right of way so acquired the Bill had nothing whatever to do.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, the Committee of the Ordnance Survey on this subject, in their Report, stated that some footpaths were shown on the Ordnance Survey map which were in no true sense footpaths at all, and not even permanent. Frequently footpaths made by shepherds-going to or from sheep in a field during the time the surveyors were on the ground were put down on the map, whilst regular footpaths were often not marked at all. He objected to power being given to the Parish Councils to protect footpaths which were only imaginary. He agreed that real rights of way should be protected, and if it was made clear that this was only to protect real rights of way he should not object. If it meant they could acquire supposed rights of way such a power would be injurious to all occupiers of land, and he should be against it.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol had said that this might be a harmless clause—that was to say, the parish would have no power to acquire rights of way except by agreement. So far as the owners were concerned, it was harmless; but he objected on the ground of expense, because in Sub-section (i) were the words—
    "To contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above-mentioned."

    123
    A large amount of money might be expended under this sub-section, because it not only dealt with a right of way within a parish, but it gave a wide range to a parish which might go and acquire rights of way all over the country—both within and without the parish. He thought, if the right hon. Gentleman would omit the words "without the parish," there could be little objection to the clause, but with those words in it would leave opportunities for incurring expense.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he would point out that there were provisions in the Bill for dealing with existing public rights of way, and he thought existing rights of way should be protected. The words "outside the parish" were most objectionable in the clause, for it seemed to him that they held out an invitation to the Parish Council to acquire, or create, rights outside the parish boundary. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not hold out some hope of omitting these words? It appeared to him that the word "acquire" was to be read as "create." When a new right of way was made by agreement, whose was it to be? If it was to belong to the parish alone, it would not be a public right of way. Then if the Parish Council was to secure a public right of way for the 38,000,000 inhabitants of these islands, why should the parish alone pay for it? He thought all those who enjoyed a public right of way should pay for it. He quite agreed that power should be given to protect existing rights of way; but he objected to the power being given to create new rights in this way, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be able to give them an assurance upon the point.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he feared the operation of the section would lead to serious litigation and trouble for the Parish Council. They would have to create new powers, and, having once created them, they would have to maintain them. He did not think it was necessary to include such powers in the Bill, since the effect would be to bring the Parish Council into difficulties hereafter.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was sure as to the effect of Sub-section 2, Clause 9, dealing with acquisitions of land? Was it understood that it would not apply to rights of way?
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, it was not intended to apply.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he presumed he might take it from the right hon. Gentleman that Sub-section 2 of Clause 9—which opened up very dangerous machinery, by means of which the power of voluntary arrangements under other clauses might be overridden —would not apply to acquisitions under the present sub-section. He could conceive circumstances when strong local pressure could be brought to bear on County Councils. If the Government gave them the assurance that the provisions in Clause 9 did not interfere in the manner he suggested he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked whether they were to understand that the words "by agreement" would be included?
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment which stood next in his name.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved—
    In page 6, line 30, to insert the words "by agreement."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would move to insert the words "by dedication."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)said, the only way they could "acquire" was by dedication, and he did not think, therefore, that the words were necessary.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would like to know whether the words "by agreement" were to be repeated in other parts of the clause, or were they to understand that they were to be taken as implied?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, the Amendment standing in his name—
    In page 6, line 30, to leave out the words "or other right,"

    125
    was covered by that of the President of the Local Government Board.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved—
    In page 6, line 30, to leave out the words "easement or other right."
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    In page 6, line 31, to leave out the word "whether."
    He would not move this Amendment, however. He would move that standing next in his name, which was—
    In page 6, line 31, to leave out the words "or without."
    He thought each parish should be limited to the rights of way within itself. Otherwise, there would be an inducement to litigation and strife with adjoining parishes.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 31, to leave out the words "or without."—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham)said, seeing that the Parish Council would be already strictly limited in their expenditure, it was very unlikely they would go to any large expense in seeking to acquire rights of way beyond their own boundaries. The object of the words in the clause was quite clear. If the power of the Parish Council were limited absolutely as proposed, there might be cases in which the limitation would defeat the object of the framers of the Bill.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, he agreed that this was one of those dangerous provisions which it was undesirable to have in the Bill. It was very undesirable to give one parish any authority to interfere with the areas of an adjoining parish. But if it was unlikely that such power would be used, what was the use of including it in the Bill at all? Only the other day they were told that they could not legislate for exceptional circumstances, but that was
    126
    what they were doing by putting in such a provision. The Parish Councils, he thought, would soon find a way of making arrangements one with another where necessity arose. The power proposed to be given was an objectionable one, and he would press upon the right hon. Gentleman that it should be left out altogether.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that one parish should have a right to create or acquire a right of way in another—
    MR. ACLAND: By agreement.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, they could not rush through a proposal of that sort. The clause would give over the power of acquiring rights of way and rights over land in one parish to the Council of another parish. This would be ousting that other parish. But the Bill, he understood, was to increase, not to diminish, the power of the parishioners. It seemed to him that they would certainly be diminishing the power of the parishioners by giving this authority to the adjoining parish. The action of the Parish Council should be confined to the parish by which it was elected.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would suggest that after the word "parish" they should insert "or adjoining parish." That, he thought, would meet the point raised by the Vice President.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there might be a case of right of way to a railway station. Supposing there was a field of land between one parish and the station, and the inhabitants of the parish wished to acquire the right of way, and the inhabitants of the other parish were not interested, since they could approach the station from the other side—in that case the arrangement would not be with the other parish, but with the landlord. That was the class of arrangement that the Government contemplated.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, the words "acquire, by agreement, any right of way," were redundant, and it did not matter whether they were in the clause or not.
    MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol would be accepted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved—
    In page 6, after the word "parish," to insert the words "or adjoining parish."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he would not move the Amendment standing next on the Paper in his name:—
    In page 6, line 31, to leave out the word "acquisition," and insert the word "protection."
    He wished, however, by permission, to move the next Amendment, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. L. Hardy)—
    In page 6, line 32, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "the."
    The Parish Council was to be for the good of the whole parish, and it was to make it clear that the rights of way would be for the general purposes of the parish, and that the power would not be exercised for the convenience of an influential section that the Amendment was brought forward.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 32, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "the."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there might be a group of houses in a particular part of a parish in respect of the convenience of the inhabitants of which the power of right of way might have to be exercised. They wished the power to be beneficial to the whole parish; the Parish Council must be satisfied upon that point: they must consider it would be to the advantage of the people of the locality that the specific right should be acquired. He did not think they could accept the Amendment.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he did not want to press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PERKSsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper—
    In page 6, after line 32,to insert,—"(g) to plant trees or shrubs in any roads or open spaces under the control of the Council, and to provide seats in such open spaces."
    He did not propose to move the Amendment.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he would like to move the insertion of the words standing in the name of the hon. Member. These words would cover the question of roads. Sub-section (c) of that clause only referred to recreation grounds, village greens, open spaces, and public walks. It did not refer to roads; and he did not think the Improvements Act gave any power to improve roads. It would be most desirable if the Parish Council did have power to deal with roads. He moved—
    In page 6, line 32, to insert,—"(g) to plant trees or shrubs in any road or open spaces under the control of the Council, and to provide seats in such open spaces."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there were District and County Authorities already for roads. They had, however, given the Parish Council power, under sub-section (c) of this clause, to put in force Clause 164of the Public Health Act in regard to recreation grounds and public walks, and they were to have power under the same sub-section to deal with open spaces.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that was already in existence.
    MR. PERKSsaid, they had power to provide seats in open spaces.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, the Vestries had those powers already.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, as the Amendment would very much overload the Bill, he thought it might be withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WICKHAM (Hants, Petersfield)MR. WICKHAM (Hants, Petersfield) moved—
    In page 6, line 34, to leave out the words "any inhabitants of."
    He said that, as the sub-section stood, the Parish Council would have power to accept and hold any gifts of property, real or personal, for the benefit of any inhabitants of the parish. He held that they should only hold gifts on behalf of the parish and not any section, small or large, of the inhabitants.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 34, to leave out the words " any inhabitants of."—(Mr. Wickham.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Sub-section."
    MR. ACLANDsaid, there were cases where it would be necessary to have the words "any inhabitants of," as, for instance, in cases where the deaf and dumb and the blind were concerned. He was disposed to think the hon. Member's fear of the Council holding gifts of property generally would not be realised.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, surely a gift for the deaf, the dumb, and the blind would come under the definition of "charity." [Mr. ACLAND: No.] If that were not so he would sit down, as he evidently had entirely ceased to know what "charity" meant.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, if the gift was beneficial to the parish, the Parish Council ought to have power to receive it on behalf of the parish.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, they could not accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, he wished to move at the end of Sub-section (b)—
    "Pull down and remove any erection for the purpose of advertising which may be disfiguring to the landscape, and also to remove any barbed wire erected without the vicinity of any dwelling house; and."
    They were all agreed that it was well that means should be taken to prevent the country being disfigured by the erection of advertisements—he would not mention the kind of advertisements to which he referred, as that would be giving the advertisers the best kind of publicity. Everyone knew the advertisements which the people who lived in the rural districts would desire to have removed, and it would be worthy of a Liberal Government to give the Parish Councils power to remove them. In the next place, the country was being made dangerous to anyone who did not keep to the footpaths—and, of course, everybody wished, now and then, to stray from them—by the use of barbed wire fences in all sorts of inconvenient places. He should imagine that there was no one who would be more likely to use judiciously the right to pull down barbed wire than the agricultural labourers who would compose the Parish Council.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 37, after the word "and," to insert the words, "pull down and remove any erection for the purpose of advertising which may be disfiguring to the landscape, and also to remove any barbed wire erected without the vicinity of any dwelling house; and."—(Mr. Darling.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    Ms. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that if he accepted these words he should expect to be subjected to some very severe criticism. It would be said of him that he was desirous of holding the Parish Councils up to ridicule. This was an advertising age. What right had they to say to a man that he should not let his land for a purpose which would bring him some profit. These were hard times in the agricultural districts, and if the hon. Member for South Essex were in his place he was sure he would indignantly repudiate any attempt to interfere with the profitable use of land.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough had carried through a Bill dealing with barbed wire, but it only affected barbed wire by the side of highways. The barbed wire in country districts was extremely inconvenient and even dangerous to children.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the Bill as brought in by the hon. Member for Peterborough had referred to barbed wire by the side of highways, but in the House of Lords it had been re-drawn and put in shape in the general interest of the community. The House of Commons accepted what had been done, and passed the Bill in the amended form.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, because—and, the Solicitor General would correct him if he was wrong—there was a Common Law right to proceed against any person who injured you with barbed wire if it was in an improper place.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR R. PAGETsaid, that Sub-section (i) read as follows:—
    "To contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above mentioned."
    He was afraid the words "any of the things above mentioned," would include everything in the clause, and if that were so they would have a very wide signification. The words "to contribute

    131
    towards the expense," should relate solely to parish property; therefore, they should add such words as "in relation to such property." Would the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board accept such words?
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Committee had already sanctioned words which would enable the Parish Council to do certain things at its own expense, and the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Dodd) proposed presently to bring forward an Amendment which would enable a Council to combine with another Council in such matters. There might be something that it was desirable to undertake which would cost £10, and a Council might say, "We will contribute £5 towards the expense," and a private individual might be prepared to contribute the other £5. The words as they stood would enable this to be done. The idea was not to increase expense, but to diminish it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet move?
    SIR R. PAGET: Yes.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 39, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "in relation to such property."—(Sir R. Paget.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. PAGETsaid, that if the power of contributing were to extend to everything in the clause, a great deal of work which ought to be done by private owners would be done by the Parish Council—work, for instance, in connection with ponds, pools, and drains. Again, in connection with rights of way, stiles, footbridges, and various other things might be necessary as works of maintenance which ought to be carried by the private owners, and under the clause as worded the Parish Council might be induced to contribute to the expense. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had quite seen this.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite see the hon. Baronet's meaning.
    SIR R. PAGETsaid, there were no words in the clause to say who was to bear the expense, even of works of maintenance which should be carried out by private owners. He had no objection to the expenditure of public funds in rela-
    132
    tion to parish property; but he could not think it right to spend those funds on private property.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, it was understood yesterday, when they were discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, that the Parish Council would have no power to spend money under these sub-sections.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the hon. Member was under a great delusion if he thought that the Parish Council had not power to do all these things mentioned in the clause. They could acquire buildings at their own expense, but under Sub-section (i) they would be able to diminish the expenditure by combination with someone else. A man might come to them and say—"Such and such a work should be done, but I am not prepared to do it myself, the cost being £5." Under this sub-section the Parish Council would be able to say— "We will give you £2 towards it." That, in the opinion of the Government and their advisers, was the meaning of the sub-section. Later on he intended to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Essex, to enable one parish to join another in doing these things. If they did not allow this system of contribution wherever these works were necessary the Parish Council would have to bear the expense itself.
    SIR R. PAGETsaid, he did not object to the power of contribution, but what he did object to was the exercise of that power in connection with other than parish property.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. DODDsaid, he desired to move to add to Sub-section (i)—
    "or agree or combine with any other Parish Council to do or contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above mentioned."
    He was glad to hear, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that the Government intended to accept the Amendment. The Committee would see that there were a number of matters in this section of the Bill which could be conveniently done by two or more parishes in combination which one parish would not be able to do itself.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 39, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "or agree or com-

    133
    bine with any other Parish Council to do or contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above mentioned."—(Mr. Dodd.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. PICTONsaid, he would move an Amendment to enable the Parish Council—
    "To regulate the use of common pastures and to fix the number of cattle, sheep, horses, or other grazing animals which each parishioner having rights of common may turn out on the common pasture."
    The Amendment dealt with a small matter which he thought the Parish Council quite competent to deal with. The suggestion came to him from his own experience. In the case of a common with which he was familiar there were a certain number of occupiers who had rights of common—and these commoners, by the way, would neither be increased nor diminished by the Amendment. Formerly, the commoners were able to agree together as to the number of sheep and other animals they should send on the common. Some years back they ceased to agree, the result being that any number of animals were sent on to the common, until, at the present time, there was scarcely anything in the shape of pasturage left. He knew of other cases where a similar state of things prevailed. Under his Amendment the Local Authority would be able to step in where the commoners disagreed and decide as to how many sheep or cattle should be placed on these commons. No doubt, on arriving at a decision, they would be guided by the ancient custom.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 39. after the word "abovementioned," to insert,—"(j) To regulate the use of common pastures and to fix the number of cattle, sheep, horses, or other grazing animals which each parishioner having rights of common may turn out on the common pasture."— (Mr. Picton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he appreciated the motives of his hon. Friend, who no doubt had made out a substantial grievance which ought to be remedied. But he (Mr. Fowler) did not think his hon. Friend had clearly shown that the Parish Council would hardly be the proper authority to deal with manorial rights which might extend to two or
    134
    more parishes. If any Local Authority should be constituted a tribunal for dealing with these matters—and he did not suggest that it should—it should be the District Council. There would be cases, no doubt, where the parish and the common would not be coterminous, and there would, therefore, be a conflict of jurisdiction between different parishes. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he thought the Parish Council might well be the authority to deal with this subject, seeing that it was to be vested with powers under the Allotments Act.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that if the Amendment were accepted it would operate very hardly in many cases with which he was acquainted. On certain commons in his neighbourhood what were called "gates" were bought and sold, and each commoner knew exactly how much stock he could place on the common. It would be unfair to give a Parish Council the right to interfere with a person and to say that he should not put on the land more than half the stock he was entitled to put on under his purchase.
    MR. PICTONsaid, that in cases where there was an agreement as to the amount of stock which should be put on a common, the commoners would not be interfered with. The Amendment would apply in cases where no such agreement could be arrived at. However, he would not press the proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARNERsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to provide that a Parish Council should have power to
    "take legal action for the protection of the rights of the parish or of its inhabitants as such."
    They had given the Parish Councils powers, but no authority to defend them. They had given them authority over commons, but no right, if anyone encroached, to take action in the matter. The whole point of this Amendment referred to the inhabitants of a parish as such. He would give three or four instances to show the kind of rights he meant. The inhabitants of Tottenham had a right to graze cattle on Lea Marshes. That was one sort of right.

    135
    Then, the parishioners of Loughton, in Essex, had a right to cut wood in Epping Forest, and on giving it up they received a considerable compensation. Walton, a small parish in Somersetshire, had the right of using a common which the lord of the manor tried to encroach upon and enclose. The parishioners fought him and maintained their rights. All these rights had been protected and held by outside individuals, partly helped and sustained by voluntary contributions no doubt. In small parishes there were few people who would care to defend these rights, and in the past many rights had been lost. Seeing that Parish Councils were to be established, he thought that the power to defend local common rights should be entrusted to them. He would quote one more case, which was an important one. The making of the Great Western Railway in Somersetshire cut off the water supply of Saltford. The company agreed to give another supply, but many of the houses had been left short of water, and many people were suffering in consequence. There was no one to take action against the Railway Company. If the Parish Councils had these powers it would prove a great boon to many small parishes.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 39, at end, to insert,—"(j) to take legal action for the protection of the rights of the parish or of its inhabitants as such."— (Mr. Warner.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he was afraid that in many respects the hon. Member had not quite considered the scope of his Amendment. In some cases it would be unnecessary, and, where it was not unnecessary, it was undesirable. The Parish Council, if it entered into contracts with people, would have the same rights as ordinary individuals in moving for the protection of those rights. If their property was in any way attacked, they would have the same rights as ordinary individuals to resist that attack. The law already provided for anything beyond this in a very simple manner. It enabled a person to apply to the Attorney General for a fiat, and if there was anything of a case the Attorney General gave one. The Attorney General should have the con-
    136
    trol he now exercised in the matter. The Amendment would enable any Parish Council to enter into litigation which might be of a doubtful character, and he did not think that would be an advantage, but a disadvantage. The process by which a fiat was obtained was a very simple one.
    MR. WARNERasked if the Village Council would be able to take action in these cases?
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: How many lawsuits will a Parish Council be able to embark in with an income of £2 10s.?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that in Clause 25 there was a special power given to the Parish Council to take action in rights of way cases. The Solicitor General had said that the objection to giving the Parish Council general power to initiate litigation was that they might do so in doubtful cases. What cases could be more doubtful than those concerning rights of way?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member refers to the District Council, not the Parish Council.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The principle is the same.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid, he wished to move to add, after "mentioned" in Sub-section (i)—
    "Provided that the powers given by (a), (b), (f), (h), and (i) shall not be exercised without the previous consent of the parish meeting."
    In this clause they had given large powers to the Parish Council to acquire buildings, to buy land, and to execute works of maintenance and improvement, and what he desired in moving the Amendment was that before the Council embarked in a large expenditure of this kind the assent of a parish meeting should be obtained. The Parish Council would be a small and, at any rate at first, a wholly untried body, and he certainly thought that before they incurred any expenditure of magnitude they should be required to obtain the sanction of the parochial electors. A small majority of a Parish Council might decide on carrying out an important public work, but on further consideration, and after the holding of a parish meeting, they might see reason to change their opinion. He

    137
    brought forward this Amendment as a check upon precipitate action, and in no spirit of hostility to the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 39, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, —"Provided that the powers given by (a), (b), (f), (h), and (i) shall not be exercised without the previous consent of the parish meeting."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think that this would be a very undesirable limitation of the action of the Parish Council. Practically it would destroy the Parish Council, because the Council would have no independent action and no freedom of administration, if everything it said or did had to be submitted to its constituents week by week or mouth by month. We have already provided in the Bill that the Council shall borrow no money without the consent of the parish meeting, and that it shall not spend more than 1d. in the £1 without such consent. If a Parish Council cannot be trusted to spend up to 1d. in the £1, you had better not have one at all.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEpointed out that arrangements might be made and contracts entered into to carry out large works, and the question whether the 1d. rate was likely to be exceeded might not come up for consideration at all until it was too late to draw back.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the President of the Local Government Board appeared to have failed to take notice of the fact that the Borough Funds Act gave exactly the same kind of control over Municipal Corporations with respect to many undertakings as was proposed to be given by the Amendment over the Parish Council. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER expressed dissent.] Many of the powers given to the Parish Councils involved a proportionately larger outlay, or at all events as great an inroad upon local resources as did the Borough Funds Act in towns.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEthought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had treated the Committee rather curtly in this matter. It was desired by means of this Bill to interest the people of the parish in what
    138
    was going on in the parish. The Bill would take away from them all such opportunity of considering and discussing anything that was to be done as they now had at the parish Vestry meeting, and the present Amendment aimed at restoring some of the powers which had thus been withdrawn. What could interest them more greatly than to know what buildings were going to be erected, what rights of way were going to be closed, what water supply was going to be utilised, and what other parish matters were going to be dealt with? If the labouring classes were to be interested in what was going on the villages, and if their institutions were to be revitalised, the people must be allowed to take an active personal part in the business of the parish. It was not proposed to take away from the Parish Councils the power of closing the things mentioned in the Bill, but simply to provide that those who elected the Parish Councils should have a voice in the matters with which those bodies dealt. One would suppose from the attitude assumed by the Government that they were afraid that the people of the villages would not endorse the action taken by their Councils. In many cases the Government insisted upon having the electors consulted. They would not allow the adoptive Acts to be adopted until the parishioners had expressed their views about them. That being so, surely it would be well to let the parishioners give their decision before the Council voted on other important matters in which the electors would take a deep interest. It was casting some slur on the intelligence of the working classes to refuse to allow them to have a voice in such matters. He strongly supported the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 223.—(Division List, No. 348.)
    MR. H. HOBHOUSE MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved the insertion of the following sub-section:—
    "A Parish Council for a parish which has a population of 1,000 and upwards shall also have such powers as an Urban Sanitary Authority under the Public Health Act, or any other Act as the County Council acting under a General Order of the Local Government Board may, on the application of such Parish Council and with or without a local inquiry, by order direct."

    139
    He said, the Committee ought not to forget that some of the so-called rural parishes were of very considerable size, and it was absolutely necessary, if the system of rural government was to be made complete, that there should be some elasticity, and that the parishes which required urban powers should be able to get them without being obliged to become urban districts for all purposes, thereby incurring a great deal of unnecessary expense. In his own constituency there were no fewer than six small towns with populations varying from 1,000 to 3,000, which were simply in the eyes of the law rural parishes. Many of these places from time to time required certain urban powers which the smaller parishes round about them did not wish for. There were also places like Egham, in Surrey, with populations amounting to nearly 10,000, which were rural parishes, and which, unless this clause was amended, would only have the very small powers which the Bill gave to the least populous villages. The powers he referred to did not by any means involve expense. Some of them were merely powers to make bye-laws on certain sanitary matters as to the keeping of pigs and other animals, the cleaning of footways, the removal of horse-refuse, and so on. There were small watering places which needed powers to regulate pleasure boats and bathing, and some places needed to provide not very expensive articles, such as weighing machines for their markets and even public clocks. The President of the Local Government Board had resisted an Amendment authorising a Parish Council to provide a public clock, because he said it was unsuitable for a small village, but he really could not contend that it was unsuitable for a town of 5,000 inhabitants. His (Mr. Hobhouse's) proposal was that the Local Government Board should from time to time make General Orders as to the kind of urban powers which might be conferred on small towns of this character, and that the County Council should have power under such an Order to confer any of these powers which it thought desirable on rural towns, instead of making them into urban districts for all purposes. At present the only choice a County Council had was either to make a rural town of this kind into an urban district for all purposes or to leave it in
    140
    the same condition as other rural parishes. There was a precedent for the present proposal. Under the 276th section of the Public Health Act the Local Government Board might either on the application of a Rural Sanitary Authority or on the application of a certain number of ratepayers declare urban provisions in force in any contributory place in an urban district. Now that a separate authority was being set up in each parish the Committee had an opportunity of vesting similar powers or such of them as might be desirable in the hands of the representatives of those parishes which desired them. It must be borne in mind that there were rural districts which were 10, 12, or even 20 miles long, and that it would not be very satisfactory to vest such powers, when they were only needed by a single parish, in the hands of a Rural Sanitary Authority representing all the parishes in the district. He ventured to think that, with the safeguards he had proposed, they would run no risks of undue expenditure, and they would avoid the unnecessary expenditure that had now been caused by the creation of all those small urban districts. Directly a town got a population of some 2,000—in the case of a watering place— it usually applied to be made into an urban district. He had put before the Committee what he believed was a very practical proposal for making the government in those small towns more satisfactory and less expensive than the present mode of converting them into rural districts, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to accepting the proposal.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 39, at end, to insert,—"A Parish Council for a parish which has a population of 1,000 and upwards shall also have such powers of an Urban Sanitary Authority under the Public Health Act, or any other Act as the County Council acting under a General Order of the Local Government Board may, on the application of such Parish Council and with or without a local inquiry, by order direct."— (Mr. H. Hobhouse.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite agree with my hon. Friend that there are many districts which are nominally rural, but which for all practical purposes are, and

    141
    ought to be, urban. As I understand, under the existing laws, a Rural Sanitary Authority may be invested, by the Orders of the Local Government Board, with urban powers, but it does not mean that the whole of the rural sanitary district must be vested with urban powers. Under Clause 57 of the Local Government Act of 1888 the County Council has the power to convert any district or any part thereof, which is a rural district, into an urban district, and, if it is an urban district, into a rural district, and those two powers together seem to us to do all that is reasonable. I think we should create confusion if we made these Parish Councils Rural Sanitary Authorities. That is the dividing line which I have tried to adhere to all through this Bill — that the Parish Council shall not be a Rural Sanitary Authority. I think by the combination of these various modes we should meet the hon. Member's view. In any case, I do not think this is the time or part of the Bill at which what the hon. Member proposes should be done, and I hope he will not press the Amendment here.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought towns in watering places, which had been alluded to by the hon. Member, might fairly ask to be made into an urban district. In the case of a place like Solihill, with, perhaps, about 1,000 people, instead of creating confusion, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would get himself out of a great difficulty by adopting the suggestion. These places had already adopted certain Acts, such as the Watching and Lighting Acts. A parish meeting that managed the lighting and watching would be the very body to entrust with the extra powers under the Sanitary Acts, which it was proposed to give them. Then they would have a rural parish with certain sanitary powers approved by the County Council, and it would relieve the right hon. Gentleman from the difficulty he was now in as to the management of the powers those places already had. A small rural town could not get the best men; but if they gave them certain powers under the Public Health Act suitable to the case, approved by the County Council, they would have a body which would be likely to attract better men.
    MR. MALLOCKsaid, it was quite true what the right hon. Gentleman said, that very large urban powers could now be granted to the Rural Sanitary Authorities or to the District Councils, when they were established, but that was not what he understood his hon. Friend opposite wanted. They wanted those powers to be granted to the parishes themselves. They would be on the spot, and would be able to manage their own affairs much better than a District Council sitting at a distance. That District Council often represented chiefly the rural parts of the district, and, therefore, took no interest in the towns. He thought this would be a most convenient power to give the County Council.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, his sympathies were entirely with his hon. Friend. He felt, however, that the clause as it stood would be somewhat difficult. He was afraid there might be some conflict of authority between the Parish Councils and the future District Councils.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had met him by saying that this was not the time or place for such an Amendment. He would like to ask when was the time and where was the place? He had moved an Amendment, because small towns in which he was interested himself desired to obtain certain additional urban powers. To give an example, he had been asked more than once whether there ought not to be some power in a small town for restricting the keeping of pigs. The only way that power could be obtained was through the Board of Guardians or the Rural Sanitary Authority, and people had to go some miles away to the Rural Sanitary Authority, which was chiefly composed of farmers, who saw no harm in keeping pigs anywhere. The Rural Sanitary Authority was not the authority to apply to, and they ought not to be the authority to exercise the powers. The right hon. Gentleman had said a town might be made into an urban district, but he contended that the multiplication of these small urban districts was very objectionable. His object was to secure by some means that the villages or small towns should be invested with power to deal with minor sanitary matters themselves. He was not in the least wedded to the

    143
    form of his own proposal, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only put such a power as that into the hands of the Local Government Board straight off he would accept it gladly. He had put forward his proposal in such a shape that it would enable the Local Government Board to have general control.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be acting wisely if he would promise to consider the Amendment as now suggested at a later stage of the Bill. There was certainly some ground for the suggestion, although he did not think the Committee were in possession of the full facts of the case so as to enable them to agree upon the form of words at the present moment. Urban powers at the present moment were granted by the Local Government Board to rural parishes, and they were granted to the Rural Sanitary Authority, and were exercised in the parish by a committee which had very limited powers. Those powers were generally granted not for what might be called sanitary purposes, but for new streets, or something of that sort. The hon. Member had now suggested that he was willing this power should be given to the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that he would consider whether he could do that it would be a very wise and prudent proceeding.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have said before that I quite sympathise with the object of the hon. Member for Somerset, but that I could not accept the Amendment, and I do not think it is the best way to deal with it, though I cannot say offhand what is the best way to deal with it. I think there is great necessity for largely extending powers in the direction suggested to all the Parish Councils, but it is not possible for me to deal with that matter now. The proper time to discuss the subject will be when we come to deal with the District Councils. I cannot accept the Amendment, but, without pledging myself to any particular course, I shall be willing to consider the question with the permanent officials of the Local Government Board in order to see how the suggestion of the hon. Member can be met without involving controversy.
    SIR C. W. DILKE: There is power given to the District Councils to delegate powers.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will look into the matter.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that on this understanding he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER the following Amendment was agreed to:—
    In page 6, line 40, to leave out the words "sell, exchange, or."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved—
    In page 6, line 40, after the word "let," to insert the words "or with the consent of the parish meeting sell or exchange."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HANBURYsaid, the object of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman that had just passed was to bring this clause into conformity with Clause 10, which said a certain thing should not be done, except with the consent of the parish meeting, evidently with the idea that it was not right to trust the Parish Council to dispose in any sense permanently of parish property.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that was not so.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, the effect of it was to take out of the control of the Parish Council the dealing at all permanently with parish property, except with the consent of the parish meeting. He thought the letting ought to be limited for a fixed number of years, and he proposed that the Parish Council should not have power to let for more than seven years. With that object he moved the following:—After the word "let," to insert these words, "for any period not exceeding seven years."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    After the word "let," to insert the words "for any period not exceeding seven years."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am in some difficulty as regards the wording. The clause as I propose to amend it will read in this way—
    "A Parish Council may let, or with the consent of the parish meeting, sell or exchange any land or buildings vested in the Council, but the power of letting for more than a week, and the

    145
    power of sale or exchange shall not be exercised in the case of property which has been acquired at the expense of any rate, or is at the passing of this Act applied in aid of any rate, or would but for want of income be so applied, without the consent of the Local Government Board."
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he wanted to extend the control of the parish meeting to the letting of land. He desired that the Parish Council should not let land for a longer period than seven years without the consent of the parish meeting.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he wished to know whether this power was to be restricted to the land acquired at the expense of the rate alone; to land which was acquired by any rate or the income of which was applied in aid of any rate? But' surely there was land which the parish held which had come to it in other ways besides acquisition out of a rate. There was land that parishes held that had been devised to them. The right hon. Gentleman would find a good deal of land that had been acquired in former days for objects that had ceased, such as for digging of gravel for the roads, parish workhouses, and other parish purposes. Why not say that any land of any parish should not be let except on these conditions? Then, more extraordinary still, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that no land should be let for more than a week without the consent of the Local Government Board. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must mean a year, and it must be an error in the printing. Then what necessity was there for going to the Local Government Board? and why not, in a case of letting for more than a year or the sale or exchange, go to the County Council, which would know all the circumstances of the case? He admitted there should be some restriction, and that a parish meeting alone should not be able to deal with the matter. However, his principal object was to obtain some explanation with regard to this clause, for, as amended by the right hon. Gentleman, it would read in anything but a satisfactory way.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: We do not consider that the Parish Council should have the power to let parish property without some controling authority. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are hard to please in this matter. They do not seem to be satisfied with either the Local Government Board or the County Council.
    146
    When I propose the County Council somebody suggests the Local Government Board, and when I propose the Local Government Board somebody suggests the County Council. As to the term "for more than a week" to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the case we had in view was the case of a parish which has a room available for concerts and lectures, the letting of which brings in a small income to the parish, and in that case we do not think the parish should be required to go to anyone to sanction such a letting. I may point out, too, that the control which we give to the Local Government Board over parish property is the control the Board now exercises not only over parish property but over municipal property. No Corporation can dispose of such property without the consent of the Local Government Board.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, the section referred to laud as well as to buildings, and it would be monstrous to require the sanction of the Local Government Board for the letting of small holdings for a longer term than one week.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, as he understood the section, its object was to prevent the alienation of the property of the parish, and as such he would support it.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he failed to see the distinction drawn between the ordinary property of the parish and property arising out of the rates. In the case of ordinary property the Parish Council could deal with it subject only to the assent of the parish meeting; but property arising out of the rates or applied in aid of rates could only be dealt with on the consent of the Local Government Board. He did not see any reason for this distinction being drawn between the property of the parish.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There is no such distinction. The Parish Council, undoubtedly, has power with the assent of the parish meeting to sell or exchange its ordinary property, but in the case of property obtained at the expense of the rates the assent of the Local Government Board is required.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that surely the Government would not require that the letting of land applied to the reduction of the rates should be submitted to the Local Government Board

    147
    He objected to the proposal about the seven years. The Parish Council ought to have the right to let land from year to year without applying for permission to anybody. If the Council wanted to let land for more than a year, then let them go to the Local Government Board or to the County Council; but the Council should not be prevented from letting farming land from week to week as they might desire.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 40, after the word "let," to insert the words "or with the consent of the parish meeting sell or exchange."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BYLES*MR. BYLES (York, W. E., Shipley) moved to omit from the Amendment the words "sell or," so that the Parish Council should have no power to sell laud vested in it. His object was to draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of the question of municipal holding of land. He desired that any community who became possessed of the precious commodity of land should not have the power to alienate it from its successors. In Bradford, which was under the Corporation Act, he had seen the Corporation buy many lots of valuable land, drive perhaps an important thoroughfare through the land, and then sell the frontages of the land to individual purchasers. He had seen those individual purchasers acquire great wealth out of the purchases which they made by the growth of the community where the land was situated. It always seemed to him that this increment of values should in equity have belonged to the community, and not to the individual. There was at this moment a movement in the Bradford Town Council to prevent the alienation of land which came into the possession of that Council. In the town of Scarborough he believed that a very large portion of land used to belong to the community, and in former days it was sold by the government of the town to prevent their levying rates upon the public. The result had been that the present population of Scarborough was divested of this property, which should have been its in-
    148
    heritance. There was in Parliament and outside a very large and growing opinion in favour of municipal and national, and not individual, holding of land, and therefore he desired to divide the Committee on the subject.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "sell or."—(Mr. Byles.)
    Question proposed, "That the words "sell or," stand part of the proposed Amendment.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he had never heard in the House a speech which had less to do with the subject under discussion than that of the hon. Member for Bradford, or which betrayed more complete ignorance of the matters with which the Bill was intended to deal. The hon. Member had discovered that land was a precious commodity. Undoubtedly it was in the places with which the hon. Member was acquainted— Bradford and Scarborough; but the Bill was one for the establishment of Councils in rural parishes; and if the hon. Member knew anything of rural parishes, he would know that land was not a precious commodity there. If he wanted any of it, there were many on the Opposition side of the House who would be glad to let him have it on easy terms. The hon. Member had taken up the time of the Committee and delayed the progress of the Bill by moving an Amendment which could not by any possibility have anything to do with the action of the Parish Councils. They would be very much too wise to saddle themselves with the acquisition of land in rural localities. The hon. Member displayed complete distrust in the bodies which the Bill would create. If the Parish Council were to become the possessor of land, the hon. Member proposed that they should never be able to divest themselves of it, however much they might wish to do so. A more ridiculous Amendment was never submitted.
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that hon. Members opposite were fond of professing a great admiration for the late Professor Fawcett, and he had heard Professor Fawcett maintain the same argument as his hon. Friend had just advanced, the protesting against the sale of land by any Public Authority, great or small. But they could not discuss a large question of

    149
    that kind on this clause. The hon. Member for Bradford had lost his opportunity. The point should have been raised on Clause 6. Clause 8 only applied to possessions into which the Council might come under the Bill. He would suggest to his hon. Friend, having made his protest, that this was too small a matter to divide the Committee upon.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean has discovered a blot on this Amendment. We have already settled the question on Clause 6. The Amendment raises a very large and a very wide question which I am not disposed to enter on now, but I may say that about 30 years ago a friend of mine offered a charity to buy its land for as much money as would produce the same income if invested in Consols. The charity refused to part with their land on any terms, and now their income had dwindled by several hundreds of pounds.
    MR. BYLESsaid, that he would accept his right hon. Friend's advice and withdraw the Amendment. ["No, no."]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Original Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 41, to leave out the words "this power," and insert the words "the power of letting for more than a week, and the power of sale or exchange."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. H. BOLTONmoved to substitute the word "year" for the word "week" in the proposed Amendment. He said, the clause applied to land as well as buildings, and it would be absurd to prohibit the Parish Council letting land for more than a week.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    To leave out the word "week," and insert the word "year."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
    Question, "That the word 'week' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'year' be inserted in the proposed Amendment" put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON*MR. T. H. BOLTON moved—
    In page 6, line 41, to leave out from the word "exercised," to the end of the sub-suction, and insert the words "without the consent of the County Council."
    He thought it was unnecessary in the letting, selling, and exchange of parish lands to appeal to the governing Boards in London, and that such matters had better be dealt with by the County Council, who knew the local circumstances and who could form an opinion on the spot as to the desirability of letting, selling, or exchange.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 41, to leave out from the word "exercised," to the end of the sub-section, and insert the words " without the consent of the County Council."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Clause 6 enacts that the consent of the Local Government Board must be obtained for the exercise of the Council's powers in certain respects. Under all the circumstances of the case, strong advocate though I am of enlarging the powers of the County Council, I think it is necessary to maintain uniformity. I must therefore disagree with the Amendment.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There are one or two points which the President of the Local Government Board did not make clear. In the clause the restriction is to apply only to land either acquired by rate or applicable in aid of the rate. My hon. Friend desired that it should apply to all land vested in the Parish Council. The right hon. Gentleman has made no reply to that point. I do not see why all land vested in the parish, whether acquired out of the rates or otherwise, should not also be sold with the authority of the local governing authority, not of the Local Government Board, but of the County Council. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is so strongly opposed to decentralisation, should have proposed this provision. When I was at the Local Government Board—not for so long a time, though, as my right hon. Friend—I found that the official staff required to be relieved of a great deal of

    151
    their burdens, and that they were opposed to any addition to the controlling powers and duties of the Department. This is especially a case in which reliance ought to be placed on local experience, rather than to insist on that desire for uniformity with which the right hon. Gentleman credits the officials of the Local Government Board. No absolute uniform rule can, in fact, be laid down as governing the propriety for the sale or exchange of land, and I think it would be very desirable to leave the power in the hands of the County Councils.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: My own wish has been repeatedly overruled on the subject of the powers of the Local Government Board and the County Councils. I have desired, in many instances, to give more power to County Councils, rather than to the Local Government Board, and I have been compelled to retreat from that position on account of the general feeling against me. I may say, however, that I object to have two jurisdictions established within the same parish. If this Amendment were adopted you would have, in order to deal with the great bulk of the parish property, to get the consent of the Local Government Board, but to deal with a large amount of the parish property you would have to get the consent of the County Council. I am sure that of all the sins which I have been guilty of, the last that should be laid to my charge is any desire to increase the duties and powers of the Local Government Board. I may, however, point out that the County Councils meet only once a quarter, whereas the Local Government Board is always accessible. On the more general grounds, however, I must adhere to the words of the Bill in regard to this matter.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was fair to the Committee. The only case in which the Committee had asked the right hon. Gentleman to place the matter in the hands of the Local Government Board was as to the making of certain laws which would apply to elections over the whole country. In every other case, except in this 6th clause, they had asked the right hon. Gentleman to transfer the power from the Local Government Board to the County Council. He thought they ought to have objected to the Local Government Board having the power
    152
    under Clause 6, for it would have been much better if it were placed in the hands of the County Council, and that they did not make the objection was due to an oversight.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is not by Clause 6, but by an Act passed many years ago, that the Local Government Board have got this control.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that might be, but it would have been possible, under Clause 6, to have asked the right hon. Gentleman to transfer this power from the Local Government Board to the County Council. He thought there was a clear distinction in those matters between the two bodies. Wherever uniformity was desired the Local Government Board was preferable, but in cases where local characteristics had to be considered they ought to substitute the County Council for the Local Government Board on every possible occasion. Personally, indeed, he was strongly in favour of expunging the Local Government Board from all provisions of the Bill where it could be done.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would adhere to the clause; and he made that appeal to his right hon. Friend on behalf of the County Councils. Instead of increasing the direct power of the County Council, which was necessary, there was far too much of a disposition to constitute the County Council a sort of Appeal Court from all the other bodies in the country. For that duty the County Council, which met only every three months, was a very incomplete Public Authority. For his own part, he had had a good deal of experience of dealing with the Local Government Board, and he had found, on the whole, that if they only poked them up a little they would get the work done more efficiently and more on a uniform plan than if they left it to the County Council.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, there appeared to be two classes of parish properly, one class being dealt with under Clause 6, and the other dealt with under this clause. He did not see the necessity of Clause 6. Surely they should deal with all parish property on the same lines? He would like to have it explained why they left some parish property to be dealt with by the County Council, and other parish property to be

    153
    dealt with by the Local Government Board. He hoped some explanation would be given by some member of the Government, for it seemed to him that this complicated arrangement would lead to very considerable confusion.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he wished to say a few words on the large question of principle involved in this matter. No one thought it could be raised on Clause 6—it might have been an omission, but certainly they had had no question directly raised as to whether there was to be more centralisation or less centralisation in the future. He put it to the President of the Local Government Board that this really was a question of bringing a great Public Department for the first time into contact with 12,000 new Local Bodies. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would view that prospect with great favour. With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity for uniformity, he would point out that this very clause brought in two Governing Bodies. He ventured to think that in all those minor matters it was better to go to the Local Authority than to the Central Authority; and he could not at all understand the action of hon. Members like the Member for Sunderland, who were always protesting against centralisation, and yet took every possible opportunity to object to an extension of the powers of Local Bodies. He thought the County Council was far preferable for dealing with these matters than the Local Government Board. He had recently heard of appeals to the Local Government Board which had taken nine or twelve months to decide. How it would be possible for the Board to do its work if they brought it into contact with thousands upon thousands of little Local Authorities, he could not conceive. It was true the County Council only met quarterly; but they had officers, and he thought that in the interest of economy and time many of those matters might be left for decision to the officials of the County Councils.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, that as he did not agree with the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Amendment, though he generally acted with them, he desired to give one simple reason why he should with absolute confidence support the proposal of the Government. He had
    154
    heard a great deal about decentralization, and of conferring certain obligations and duties on the County Councils. He had not the honour of being a member of a County Council but he had observed that when it was proposed to place new duties on the County Council they were generally of a disagreeable character, and tended to bring the County Council into conflict with the subordinate authorities He ventured to say that they would not decentralise a bit by transferring those duties from the Local Government Board to the County Council, while they would unquestionably add to county expenditure enormously, by bringing into existence to discharge those duties a large number of officers, who would be paid out of the county rates, instead of the present much more advantageous system of officers paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, which to that extent relieved the local rates. For those reasons, and because he thought the Local Government Board was the best authority to be left as a final Court of Appeal in those matters, he opposed the Amendment.
    MR. STEPHENSsaid, he desired to say a word or two to induce the President of the Local Government Board to take a firm stand against overloading his Department with those duties. The question was not whether those duties were disagreeable or not, but whether control would be more satisfactorily administered by the County Council than by the Local Government Board. He submitted that the control exercised by a Representative Authority must be more satisfactory to the Parish Councils than the control of an Inspector of a Central Board. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that this control of the parishes was much more serious than the control which the Local Government Board exercised over the large Municipal Bodies. When the Bill started on its way through the House there were about 14 controls by the Local Government Board over the parishes; but the number was rising very fast, and it behoved the President of the Local Government Board to consider whether his Department would really be able to deal with the duties cast upon it. He had correspondents pointing out to him that the work of the Local Government Board was already largely in arrear; that Local Government Board inquiries promised a year ago had not yet

    155
    been held, and that very great injury had been inflicted on many parts of the country through the absolute inability of the Local Government Board to perform the duties which already existed. He thought that a very good reason why the Amendment should be accepted.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that as he had made his protest against the proposal to confer these powers on the Local Government Board rather than on the County Council, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS MR. JESSE COLLINGS moved—
    In page 7, leave out from the end of Subsection 2, the words "or in any other case, without such consent or approval as is required under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1891."
    These words would permit the Charity Commissioners to exercise a control over the letting of land vested in the Parish Councils for parish allotments, and that, in his opinion, would be a very bad arrangement. If the Parish Councils were entrusted with any powers at all, they ought to be entrusted with the administration of the Allotments Act.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, to leave out from Sub-section 2 all the words from the word "or" to the end of the Sub-section. — (Mr. Jesse Callings.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLEK: I must object to the Amendment, but as I recognise that there may be friction with the Charity Commissioners in the letting of land for allotments, I am willing to add to the end of the sub-section the words—
    "Provided that the consent of the Charity Commissioners shall not be required in the letting of allotments in land under the Parish Council."
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he accepted these words, and would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
    In page 7, line 4, to add to the end of the sub-section—"Provided that the consent of the Charity Commissioners shall not be required in the letting of allotments in land under the Parish Council."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to omit Subsection 3 of the clause. He did not intend to move it, but he would like to ask why it was considered necessary to insert the reservation—
    "(3) Nothing in this section shall derogate from any obligation of a District Council with respect to the supply of water or the execution of sanitary works."
    That obligation was on the Sanitary Authority, and he did not see that there was anything in the Act to deprive the Sanitary Authority of that obligation.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: We have been giving certain powers which may be open to argument, and we want to specially guard the matters referred to in the sub-section.
    On Motion of Mr. BRUNNER, the following Amendment was agreed to —
    In page 7, line 7, at end, add—"(4) Notice of any application to the Board of Agriculture in relation to a common shall be served upon the Council of every parish in which any part of the common to which the application relates is situate."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he desired at this point to call attention to the fact that assurances had been given by the President of the Local Government Board a short time ago that the compulsory provisions of Clause 9 in the Bill would not apply to the acquisition of a right of way. He had accepted that assurance, as he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had intended it, in perfect good faith. But he had felt some doubt on the point, and after a conversation with some of his hon. Friends more learned in the law, he had arrived at the conclusion that the clause now to be put from the Chair, taken in conjunction with Clause 9, which dealt with compulsory powers, would cover the acquisition of a right of way. Clause 9 provided that for the acquisition of land for any purpose to which the parish desired to apply it proceedings must be taken under the Allotments Act of 1887. Turning to the Allotments Acts—Section 3, Sub-section 5—he found that in construing for the purposes of the clause the word "land," the word should have the same meaning as in the Act—that was, the Allotments

    157
    Act; and the Definition Clause of that Act declared that the expression "land" included "pasture, arable, and other land, and any right of way or easement." It was, therefore, clear that under Clause 9, as drawn, the Bill could be applied to the acquisition of rights of way, and that being so he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, in fulfilment of his honourable engagement to the Committee, would see that words were included providing that the clause should not apply to the acquisition of a right of way.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that if the legal friends of the right hon. Gentleman had discovered this blot on the Bill it would have been well if they had pointed it out themselves. If it were so, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, then it must be corrected. But he was inclined to think that the governing words in Clause 9 were that in the acquisition of land they were to adopt the procedure of the Allotments Act, and there was nothing in that Act which said that the word "land" should have a different meaning from its legal meaning, which did not include a right of way. However, the matter would be looked into.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he was glad to hear that the matter would be looked into. With regard to the first observation of his hon. and learned Friend, he would point out that it was no uncommon thing for gentlemen who were not lawyers to ask those who were lawyers their opinion on legal points. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when he first looked at the matter he himself formed the same view as had been expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but having looked into the sections since, he was satisfied the point was by no means clear. He hoped, therefore, the Solicitor General would understand that they did not want to throw doubt on his opinion with regard to the point, but they wished to say that it might not be so absolutely clear as the hon. and learned Gentleman thought. He took the responsibility of saying that the point required further consideration. He was sure the Solicitor General would not be discourteous, and he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that this was not a point taken on anonymous assertion, but a point which the lawyers came to the conclusion there was a serious doubt
    158
    about it, and that it was a matter which required to be set clear.
    SIR J. RIGBYhad no sort of intention of being discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, or those who thought with him on this matter. What he did think the Government had some reason to complain of was that again and again, without their receiving the slightest assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite, those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen said—"Oh, if you look into it you will find it is not so clear." If any lawyer saw the difficulty he should have thought the way to promote and facilitate the progress of the proceedings was to have pointed it out, and not to have said there were difficulties.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman: intended to be discourteous, but he would point out that when he raised this matter —which he did on his own responsibility as a Member of Parliament—he said he had consulted several of his Colleagues more learned in the law than himself, and, fortified by their opinion and judgment, he expressed the opinion that the words in the clause were not sufficient to carry out the intention of the Government. He stated that, and was flatly contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Lowther) now said that his contention was correct, and that farther words would be required. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he knew, did not intend to act discourteously, but he hoped he would see that his ipse dixit, however ready they might be to accept it, must not preclude them from making further investigation into points of this kind.
    SIR J. RIGBYrepeated that he had no idea of being, and was not, discourteous. If the right hon. Gentleman would recall what he (Sir J. Rigby) said, he would remember that, instead of on his ipse dixit, flatly contradicting the right hon. Gentleman, he began by saying that the matter should receive consideration, and if it turned out there was any point in the objection it should be attended to, but at present he was of opinion, on the true construction of the clause, that there was no point in the objection. That being the case, he was surely not discourteous.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman must not misunderstand him. He expressly said he excluded him from any discourtesy. When he spoke of flat contradiction he was speaking not of what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman just now, but rather of the first occasion when he (Mr. Lowther) raised this point to-night. He then asked if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill held that his (Mr. Lowther's) contention was inaccurate, and the right hon. Gentleman intimated that he did so hold. That was what he called a flat contradiction. He asserted his opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman then asserted his in the opposite sense.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned his legal advisers on this matter he intimated that they were not very great authorities. Had the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight intimated that he had doubt on the point, such an expression would no doubt have carried great weight. At all events, if there was a doubt it should be looked into.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 (Powers of Parish Council for acquisition of land.)
    DR. CLARK DR. CLARK (Caithness), on behalf of Mr. W. SAUNDERS (Newington, Walworth), said, he wished to move the following Amendment:—
    In page 7, line 8, to leave out "purchase," and insert "acquisition."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    DR. CLARKsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, because by his own clause he would require a modification. The question really was whether the Parish Councils were to buy land and to sell it again to a tenant, or whether they were to buy it and let it to a tenant? The original proposal of the Bill was purchase, and purchase only—that the Parish Council should buy and then sell. They had a discussion last year on the 24th of March upon this question, when
    160
    it was sought to empower County Councils to buy land, a speech was made by the First Lord of the Treasury, who asked why a County Council should not be able to hold land on fen from the landowner; it seemed to him (the Prime Minister) that there was considerable danger and difficulty in requiring the County Council to purchase and then empowering them to let, and he was not aware of any reason why they should not authorise the County Council to take land upon fen, of course upon fair terms. That was, in his (Dr. Clark's) opinion, a strong reason why they should have what was probably the oldest form of land tenure since land tenures began, the old Roman emphyteusis, which existed now in various parts of the world under different names. He thought they should carry into effect the recommendations of the various Committees that had sat upon this question. A Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was Chairman, sat about two years ago upon this question, and they suggested a method of acquiring land which he thought should now be carried out when they legislated upon this matter. They, the Small Holdings Committee, appointed by the Conservative Government, reported that the Local Authorities should be authorised to acquire land for small holdings, and they suggested the borrowing of money from the Exchequer, and then to allot the land. He hoped the Government would carry out that scheme.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 8, to leave out the word "purchase," and insert the word "acquisition." —(Dr. Clark.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'purchase' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: This is a question which has nothing to do with small holdings. It has nothing to do even with allotments. I am quite willing to accept the word "acquisition," because it is the word used in the Lands Clauses Act, and is perhaps a better word for the purpose.
    DR. CLARKsaid, that if the Liberal Party were going to be just and generous to the landlords they ought also to consider the new landlords they were going to create. One of the articles in the

    161
    Newcastle Programme was the taxation of land values, and if they proposed to buy the land from the present holders, and sell it to another class of holders, and then to tax away all that these men had bought, they would he inducing them to throw away their money, and to take a course that would be utterly unjust to the new buyers. It would be a wiser course to acquire land for letting purposes only, and if the Committee were going to do anything in the form of purchase they should only use public credit for the benefit of the public as a whole, and not for any class.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not rise at this moment to enter upon a general discussion of this question, the importance of which the Committee would perceive. He merely rose to point out that when the right hon. Gentleman stated just now that this Bill in no way interfered either with the Small Holdings Act or—as he understood him—the Allotments Act, although that statement was true as regarded the original Bill, the whole position was very much altered by the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had placed upon the Paper only yesterday or this morning. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Two or three days ago.] The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had now placed upon the Paper undoubtedly altered both the Allotments Act and the Small Holdings Act, and a most serious question was raised. He owned that when he first read it he had a doubt in his own mind as to whether the Government were so anxious to pass this Bill as they now professed to be, because why should they introduce into the Bill large questions of this character, which entirely altered the character of the Allotments Act and the Small Holdings Act? They would no doubt have a full explanation from the Government as to what they proposed, and the reasons by which they had been induced to take this course.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There is nothing in this Bill in reference to the purchase of land by a Parish Council for allotments or small holdings. When the proper time arrives I shall he quite willing to discuss the wisdom or folly of those proposals. "Acquisition" is a ranch wider word than "purchase"; it includes purchase. There is no power in
    162
    this Act which I am aware of to buy land for the purpose of selling it again. I cannot enter into the discussion which has been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness. "Acquisition" is a better word than "purchase," but beyond that I am not prepared to go.
    Question put, and negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments are out of Order.
    SIR R. PAGETasked, as a point of Order, what the objection was to his Amendment?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It proposes to leave out an exception to the Land Clauses Act, and to leave out the exception would be meaningless here.
    SIR R. PAGET SIR R. PAGET rose—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Saunders.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: No one, I am sure, wishes to argue with the Chair, but I submit that as Members of the House we are entitled to raise points of Order. The hon. Baronet and one or two other Members rose to do that. Before you give your decision, surely it is right to hear hon. Members. [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I heard the objection. The matter is one I have carefully considered, and I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is out of Order. It certainly would be an extraordinary thing to allow an argument upon a ruling from the Chair of that character. I hope—and I believe it is the case—that the Committee will give me credit for being always ready to consider legitimate points of Order.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he wished to draw attention to an important point in connection with this clause. In line 12 reference was made to the 178th section of the Public Health Act of 1875. That section only dealt with the acquisition of land in the Duchy of Lancaster, and it seemed to him clear that the 178th was a misprint for the 176th section.
    MR. BUCKNILLsaid, the whole of the first part of the clause, with the exception of 'the words "Parish Council," and with the addition of the words "under this Act," was taken word for

    163
    word from the Small Agricultural Holdings Act of 1892.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he understood that they were proposing to incorporate the 178th section of the Public Health Act, and not the 176th in the Bill, but as he was without specific information on the point, he would make inquiries, and if he found that a mistake had been made it would be rectified hereafter.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he would move an Amendment to enable a parish to obtain a water supply where it was necessary. The case he wished to bring specifically before the Committee was not one which would apply in many other constituencies than his own. But in his own constituency there were cases where the only water supply available for the use of the community was connected with disused mines. Two of the parishes he was interested in were at present seeking powers to avail themselves of such water supplies. The answer which had been received from the landlords owning the water supplies—certainly in one case, and he believed in both—was that they would not permit the water to be used as proposed except on the understanding that the user should be terminated at any time by a six months' notice, the plea given for that extraordinary refusal being that the mines from which this water supply was mainly drawn might at some future time be brought into work again when the water would be required. He believed these mines had not been working for a quarter of a century. But the point of his contention was that it was not right that any individual should have power to refuse one of the first necessities of health to a large number of individuals. It stood to reason that if a parish had to lay out a large sum of money for the purpose of establishing waterworks and bringing in a supply of water by pipes and otherwise it should not be under the possibility of having the supply of water cut off on six months' notice. The only way that he could see of getting over the difficulty was by providing that the Parish Council should have powers to compel the landlord to grant the water supply without limitation as to notice. He regretted that he had not been in his place before the last clause
    164
    was disposed of, so that he could have moved an Amendment to give the County Council direct power in the matter. Under the present Amendment, if the Parish Council were unable by voluntary agreement to obtain the power of utilising any supply of water within their parish they could represent the case to the District Council.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 16, after the word "it," to insert the words "or the power of utilising any supply of water within their parish."— (Mr. Conybeare.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he very much regretted that the hon. Member was not present to raise the question on the last clause, for on that clause the powers of the Parish Councils in regard to water supply had been fully discussed. It had been decided that the Parish Councils should have no waterworks powers whatever. The Committee had limited their powers to simply utilising water supplies, and had vetoed anything in the nature of a compulsory power to take water. If the compulsory powers contemplated in the Amendment were sanctioned, they would be conferring on the Parish Councils powers which at present no Sanitary Authority and no Municipality in the Kingdom possessed. The District Councils would have power to acquire water supplies.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was content with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He did not wish to see powers conferred on the Parish Councils that larger Local Authorities did not possess. He would rest satisfied with the assurance that the District Councils would be able to move in the matter of obtaining water supplies for local districts.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. W. LONG: In the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset (Sir A. Acland-Hood) I beg to move the Amendment standing in that hon. Member's name—namely,
    In page 7, line 16, to leave out from "may," to end of Clause, and insert "petition the County Council, and thereupon the provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 11 of 'The Allotments Act, 1887,' as to the acquisition of land other-

    165
    wise than by agreement shall apply with the substitution of 'Parish Council' for 'Sanitary Authority.'"
    I move the Amendment, because it seems to me that on the whole this is the most convenient method, and probably the most convenient time to consider the proposals of the Government so far as they are contained in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford has already referred to the fact that the Government has placed on the Paper an Amendment dealing with the acquisition of land for allotment purposes, and he has already referred to the fact that the Amendment takes a very important form, that is to say, that it amounts to a reform of the existing Allotment Acts. I may say, in other words, that the opportunity is taken of the Bill to introduce a new Allotments Act altogether. Well, Sir, we have had occasion before, on this side of the House, to refer, in no spirit of contention or factious opposition, but in perfect good faith, to the difficulty under which we have laboured from the commencement in the consideration of this Bill in Committee in regard to the somewhat peculiar arrangement of the different clauses. It is undoubtedly extremely awkward for Members of the House who desire to discuss the proposals of this Bill to find themselves confronted by the fact that a clause which deals only in part with certain proposals hangs on another clause or on other clauses in other parts of the Bill. This difficulty arises in an accentuated form on Clause 9. This clause is, perhaps, the first in the Bill which proposes to effect any material and important alteration in the existing law, and it is a clause which, no matter whether hon. Members agree or disagree with it, will, undoubtedly lead to very considerable Debate. Now, what has been the procedure of Her Majesty's Government? I am glad to take this opportunity of saying, that throughout the whole of the Bill, from its introduction down to the present moment, no Member of the Opposition has any right to complain in the slightest degree of the attitude taken up towards our suggestions by the Minister in charge of the Bill. On the contrary, the utmost courtesy, the greatest possible good temper, and the most perfect patience have governed the
    166
    right hon. Gentleman, in circumstances which I am certain he has found to be of exceptional difficulty, and which the Committee must admit, if they stop to consider for a moment, have had very few parallels in the records of this House. The proposals are of a novel character, and the right hon. Gentleman has frequently told us himself that the Bill is an experiment; therefore he has not had, as other Ministers have had before him, precedents to assist him in the course he has taken. We have no cause to complain of the course he has adopted, but are glad to acknowledge the courtesy and goodwill with which he has met us. Having said that, I feel myself better able to complain, as I do, of the course to which the right hon. Gentleman — no doubt for good reasons, which he will be able to advance later on — has taken in regard to this clause. The clause is one of the most important to be found in the Bill, whether it is viewed from the point of view of hon. Members opposite in regard to its effect on future dealings in land—from the point of view of those who desire to see land acquired more easily than it is at present for certain purposes—or from the point of view of right hon. Gentlemen on this side, who say that there is no ground for allowing land to be taken compulsorily unless Parliament is allowed to intervene in the first instance, and say whether compulsion shall be exercised or not. Under this clause the Provisional Order system is dispensed with, and a Government Department is clothed with the very invidious and difficult and responsible task of saying whether or not a man's property shall be taken from him and devoted to a particular purpose against his will. But things do not stop there. Hitherto, when Parliament has authorised the compulsory acquisition of anybody's land for a particular purpose it has generally done so—to put it briefly—on these grounds: Land, it has said, cannot be regarded as property in the same way as houses; it is necessary for the existence of the community, and if a man chooses to make use of it in an improper way (that is to say, declines to allow the community to benefit from it), Parliament must step in and take it from him in the interest of the public. That is the line Parliament has hitherto taken; but, at all events,

    167
    it has gone on to say that if land is taken compulsorily it shall be taken at a fair valuation, and that a special sum shall be paid in recognition of the fact that compulsion is exercised. [Sir J. RIGBY: No, no.] The hon. and learned Member will be able to show me if I am wrong. I confine myself now to the particular suggestion of the Government. Hitherto Parliament has said what amounts to this, that compulsory purchase from an unwilling seller shall not be regarded in the same light as voluntary sale. The change proposed in the law by this clause is most injurious not only to landowners — because their interest, I admit, is, in the consideration of this question, a minor matter — but to the community, and those on whose behalf this proposal is made. And the further proposal is the most injurious and mischievous of all, because it was proposed that land, under certain circumstances, should not only be bought, but hired compulsorily for a certain number of years. That is a much more serious change, because, at all events, under the system of compulsory purchase you have bought your land and paid a certain price for it, but here you take over the temporary ownership of land for a certain period of years, and you retain to yourselves the right to throw back on the owner that land in a deteriorated condition. You say to that landowner, if he ventures to complain—"We will compensate you," and in your generosity you compensate him out of his own pocket. These changes, I say, are of a most serious character, and should receive the most careful consideration of Parliament. I heard something earlier in the evening about the length to which these Debates have been carried. Well, Sir, I have had some experience of conducting through this House a Local Government Bill, and even if my memory had not served me in the matter, there are methods by which one can refresh one's memory as to the way in which these Debates were carried on. We acknowledged at the time of the passing of that Bill the courteous and valuable assistance we received from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were then sitting here; but, at the same time, we can point to the fact that many and many a discussion raised on the Committee stage took the form of a Second Reading
    168
    Debate. I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will complain when we say that we have now reached a clause which we consider should receive the most careful consideration of Parliament. We are as anxious as they are that the ownership of land should be extended, and that allotments and small holdings should be extended over as wide an area as possible; but we are not prepared to see great and grave changes made in the law of ownership of land without, at all events, the full time and attention of Parliament being devoted to the matter. Now, what are the proposals the Government have made? They are twofold. There is the proposal in the Bill, and the proposal which comes in the form of a new clause. This two-fold arrangement is most unfortunate in the interest of the Government themselves. They want to pass their Bill; they want to get it placed on the Statute Book with as little delay as possible. Then why in the name of fortune do they force upon the House a two-fold discussion when one would have sufficed? Had the new proposals been introduced as Amendments to the Clause the Committee might have discussed the whole subject of allotments, whereas now the new proposals, serious and important as they are, must be postponed until the end of the Bill has been reached. I cannot discuss the new proposals of the Government—I should be out of Order if I did—but I can ask the Committee to consider what the law is as it stands now, and what reason there is that it should be changed. The late Government, in 1887, allows Local Authorities to hire laud by agreement, and when a Local Authority fails it gives power of purchasing by compulsion. This Bill, as it stands, displaces the Provisional Order system which has to be initiated by the County Council, Parliament then affirming or refusing to permit compulsory purchase. The County Council is kept only as the initiatory authority, the Local Government Board being given absolute discretion, which will enable it if it wishes to order land to be compulsorily purchased. Then the Local Authorities are given the opportunity of compulsory hiring. I will not take up the time of the Committee by dealing with that matter at length, but there are many hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in

    169
    all quarters of the House, who, however keen they may be as Party men, are still practical and fair-minded men, and I want to give them on this question of hiring land for allotments the benefit of my own personal experience, which happens to have been peculiar. My predecessors in the property which I possess let some land for allotments in two different parishes 10 miles apart. I have no reason to believe they exercised less discrimination in the selection of the land than in other cases where they provided allotments. The land was cultivated for a considerable length of time, but eventually one of the plots turned out to be unkind land for purposes of spade cultivation, and the other, from local circumstances which I need not detail, ceased to command the attention of its occupiers. Well, what happened? I found them being grossly neglected and extremely badly cultivated, and the allotment tenants themselves indicated to me that the fields were not desirable, and that they would like to give them up. As I say, I, as owner, found the land in a most deteriorated condition, and dirty beyond description—not owing to any fault on the part of the tenants, but entirely on account of the unkind character of the soil in one case, and the other on account of the local circumstances I have alluded to. I was glad and willing to take the fields myself, and to find the tenants, as I thought, land more suitable for allotments. I took the risk and loss on my own shoulders. But in this I was dealing with my own property. Nobody else was called upon to pay for what I chose to consider a duty. But there is all the difference in the world between an individual who voluntarily undertakes loss or damage incurred on his own property and a Public Authority doing it when the loss and burden have to be borne by the ratepayers. The plots of which I am speaking were handed back after having been occupied for some considerable time in an utterly deteriorated condition. I had to get a neighbouring tenant to take them at a considerably reduced rent. The loss was mine. I am not complaining of it. I do not want the Committee to think that I am regarding that as money out of pocket. Whereas the land was originally worth 40s., and when it was given up it was only worth 15s., I do not want
    170
    them to consider that I am regarding the difference between 40s. and 15s. What I want the Committee to regard is that here is a case where the persons who let the land knew what they were doing, and acted with the best intentions, but yet where the result was entirely unsatisfactory, the land, after an occupation of some years, being given up unfit for anyone to take who wished it to be remunerative. What will be the position of the Local Authorities? They will do their best. They will let land which they believe to be suitable on terms which they believe to be reasonable. If, however, at the end of 7 or 14 years it turns out that they were mistaken, and that the land was not fit for allotments, what will be the result? It will be given up to them by the tenants, and they will surrender it to the owner. Well, I ask, is it fair compulsorily to take land from a man on a hiring system for 7 or 14 years and then to throw it back on his hands deteriorated and possibly ruined? Gentlemen opposite say he has no right to complain because he will be compensated. But how will he be compensated? With a cheque, the money to meet which he will as a ratepayer have to draw out of his own pocket. If you say you cannot provide allotments without compulsorily hiring land—which I deny—say so honestly and straightforwardly, but do not pretend that you are giving compensation when you know perfectly well that he will have to pay the compensation out of his own pocket. Let the Committee and the country understand what you are suggesting, and then if Parliament is prepared to endorse your proposals, those who object to them, after having had a full and fair opportunity of stating what their objections are, will loyally abide by the decision arrived at and endeavour to carry it out. I know there are some hon. Members who are actuated by a sincere feeling of opposition to what are called the land-owning classes—a sentiment based not on jealousy or envy or any ridiculous feeling of that kind, but on a conscientious belief that the land-owning classes have not discharged their duty to the community. I appeal to them before acting on any such feelings to put themselves into the position of an owner of land, and to examine the facts for themselves. I think they will then find that there is no reason for attacking the land-

    171
    owning classes on the ground of any improper discharge of their duties in the past. If that charge can be dismissed, I ask the Committee to approach this question from the practical point of view of men who want to facilitate the acquisition of land in small plots, and who want to see an extension both of the occupation and of the ownership of land in this country on fair terms. Those who understand and care about the interest of our villages and country communities, know perfectly well that there is nothing more closely connected with the welfare of the labouring classes than the condition in which the owners are placed. If yon introduce this system of compulsory hiring you will, in my opinion, do far greater injury to the cause of allotments than you will do good; you will strike a blow at the system instead of helping it. Undoubtedly Local Authorities will take advantage of such a system. They will say—"Here is a limited risk. We will try hiring laud as an experiment. If it does not answer we can get rid of it again." If they do that you may depend upon it that you will not get that continued interest in the question of allotments which you are sure to secure if you make the Local Authority the owner of the land. I think that this is an unwise and unfair departure from the system which has hitherto prevailed with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land, and that it will do harm instead of good to the cause of allotments in this country. For these reasons and for others which I hope will be better expressed by speakers who, I trust, will subsequently address the Committee, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Sir A. Acland-Hood). I move it in no hostility to and with no desire to interfere with the system of allotments, but in the belief that the Government are unwisely tampering with the established laws of this country with regard to the acquisition of land, and that if the proposed new system is put into operation the result will be disastrous and ruinous to those whose interests the proposal is intended to serve.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 16, to leave out from the word "may," to the end of Clause, and add the words "petition the County Council, and thereupon the provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 11 of ' The
    172
    Allotments Act, 1887,' as to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement shall apply with the substitution of ' Parish Council' for ' Sanitary Authority.' "—(Mr. Long.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'represent the case to the' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the kind manner in which he has recognised my very feeble efforts to carry this Bill through the Committee. I have thought it my duty to regard this Bill as a measure on which Members in all parts of the House might throw great light and make many valuable suggestions; and though perhaps I may be very severely criticised in some quarters for not having stood by every line of the Bill, I am certain it will be a much better Bill by reason of the Amendments it has received in the course of the discussion. I hope to pursue the same policy until we have disposed of the Bill. With reference to the Amendment, I think the hon. Member complained that the Committee was put in some difficulty on account of the procedure which the Government has pursued in reference to this clause. I would like the Committee to understand what is the procedure the Government has pursued, and I will then put it whether there is any reasonable ground for complaint. The clause as it stands has never been varied from the time the Bill was brought in last March, nor do we propose to vary it now. The very great changes we propose have not been sprung upon the Committee. They were before the House when the Bill was brought in, and have been before it from that time to the present. Sub-section (c), which appeared in the clause on the introduction of the Bill, confers on the Local Authority the power to hire land compulsorily for the purpose of allotments. I think I alluded to that power in the speech in which I introduced the Bill to the House. In the Second Reading Debate many criticisms were uttered about the drafting of the sub-section and the novelty of its provisions, and many defects were pointed out in it from both sides of the House. I took the earliest possible opportunity of endeavouring to make our meaning clearer, and some weeks ago I put down an Amendment to that clause explanatory of Sub-section (c). A large number of Amend-

    173
    ments were put down to my Amendments, and a great many representations were made to me—a great many publicly in newspapers that were sent to me, and a great many privately by Members of the House, and various Associations and individuals from all parts of the Kingdom—pointing out that even my Amendment was defective, and that in order to make the clause work it would be necessary to alter it still further. With the assistance of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. H. Gardner), who, I am sorry to say, is absent on account of illness, I have thoroughly considered all these points, and have arrived at the conclusion that the fairest and wisest and best way for the Committee to deal with the question of compulsory hiring is by the introduction of a separate clause, taking that question altogether out of Clause9, and dealing with it by itself. The Committee will, if they adopt that course, have, as they would not have if they attempted to amend this clause, an opportunity of discussing the principle very fully on the Second Reading of the new clause, and will so have an opportunity of amending it if they think proper. I do not think that will be found to be either an inconvenient or a dilatory mode of procedure. On the Second Reading of the new clause we shall be prepared to say what we can in favour of it, and at the same time respectfully to listen to the criticisms that may be brought against it. I quite recognise the importance—the supreme importance—of the present clause, and I do not want to take any captious objection to the effect that the whole question cannot be raised upon the Amendment. I think, on the contrary, that the hon. Gentleman has adopted a very convenient way of raising his objection to the Government scheme as a whole, and I shall be very glad if the Committee will take his lead and discuss the clause as a whole. Of course, however, I must put in a respectful request that we should not have the discussion all over again when we come to deal with the clause line by line. Under the Allotments Act of 1887 if the Sanitary Authority are unable to obtain land for the purpose of allotments, the course of procedure is to petition the County Council. The County Council hold a local inquiry and, if a case is made out,
    174
    issues a Provisional Order. It is then the duty of the Local Government Board to introduce into Parliament a Bill confirming the Provisional Order, and if Parliament approves of it, that Provisional Order becomes law. The Committee will see that the stages before obtaining compulsory powers to acquire land are—first, the representation or petition to the County Council; secondly, the inquiry by and decision of the County Council; and, thirdly, the passing of the Provisional Order through Parliament. The Provisional Order may, of course, be contested before a Committee of this House. We are of opinion that this is a dilatory, expensive, and unsatisfactory mode of procedure. I should like to read to the House one or two quotations upon this point before I proceed to deal with the alterations we propose to make. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, speaking some years ago, said—
    "What are the two greatest and most pressing needs of our time? I think most men would say the provision of healthy, decent dwellings in our large towns at fair rents, and in the country for the labourer to obtain a small plot of land which he may be able to work. I believe that both these objects can be obtained through the intervention of the Local Authorities, and I would accordingly give to them the power to acquire any land which it may be necessary for them to take in order to carry out those objects, or for any other public purpose. I would further enable them to acquire it at its fair value, which I define to be the price which a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller in the open market."
    A few months later the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I have been anxious that the final settlement of this great question should be referred to those new, local, popular, and representative authorities, which I hope it will be the first duty of any Liberal Government to establish throughout the length and breadth of the land, and to them I have suggested should be given power to acquire land by compulsion at a fair price for every public purpose. And among the public purposes one of the chief I have in view is the letting of allotments and the creation of small tenancies. I am convinced that at the present moment in almost every village there are one or two or more who are well qualified to take advantage of such facilities as these, and who would do well if they could obtain at a reasonable price a fair quantity of the land that they cultivate for the advantage of others, and without hope of benefit to themselves."
    After dwelling on various arguments my right hon. Friend concluded thus—

    175
    "Under these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that this increase of the functions of Local Authorities must be an essential feature of any proposal for the reform of local government."
    These are our views, and these are the views we have put into the Bill. We propose in the Bill that the Parish Council should go to the Local Government Board instead of to the County Council, and that the Local Government Board should make the Order, dispensing with the sanction of Parliament. Now, Sir, is there any precedent for that proposal? Yes. A precedent is to be found in the procedure authorised by the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1885, amended in 1886. Under those two Acts the Irish Local Government Board are authorised to empower the Sanitary Authority to take land compulsorily subject only to an appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. Then, Sir, we propose that the Local Government Board should make the Order. The hon. Gentleman opposite has not raised a very strong objection to that course. He characterised it as an entirely new procedure; but he did not point to any disadvantages of having an independent and impartial authority for dealing with this question. I know some hon. Members may say—"Why do you not give this power to the County Council?" Well, I have no desire to concentrate power or work on the Local Government Board, but the Local Government Board is responsible to Parliament, while the County Council is not. If you invest the Local Government Board with Parliamentary powers, I think its exercise must be held to be subject to the supreme and final authority of Parliament. That is the reason why we propose that the Local Government Board should be introduced. No doubt there is a great deal to be said on both sides, but it must be admitted that the present procedure is a very expensive one, and a very dilatory one; while the new procedure will be a rapid and an economical one. Is there any reason which any hon. Gentleman can urge why we should adopt an expensive and dilatory procedure when an economical and rapid procedure is at our hands? If you can show that the Local Government Board cannot be trusted, or that their Inspectors are not qualified or able to discharge the duty
    176
    that will be imposed upon them, you will, of course, bring forward a strong argument against the proposal. Let me, however, read to the Committee some evidence given by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) before the Royal Commission. The Chairman said—
    "I understand you propose a Local Government Board inquiry?"
    My right hon. Friend replied—
    "Certainly."
    Then Lord Salisbury asked—
    "Would not that swell the already monstrous bill of expenses under which compulsory purchase always suffers? "
    My right hon. Friend replied—
    "No, I do not think so. Local Government Board inquiries, which are on the whole exceedingly satisfactory to everybody concerned, are held on a great number of questions, and they are the cheapest of all local inquiries. They are much more satisfactory than Parliamentary Committees, and, as a rule, after one of these inquiries all parties feel that their interests have been fairly considered, and they cost very little."
    My right hon. Friend added that, although the inquiry was sometimes informal, justice was almost invariably done. Well, that is the testimony of my right hon. Friend, with his great local and administrative experience, he being at the time a Cabinet Minister, and knowing the cost of these Parliamentary contests. I say you cannot get a witness of greater experience, impartiality, and ability than my right hon. Friend. Compulsory hiring is not in this clause at all.
    MR. W. LONG: I beg pardon. Subsection (c).
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have an Amendment down to strike it out.
    MR. W. LONG: But the right hon. Gentleman said it was not in the clause. We are entitled to discuss the clause as it stands.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled, when I say I propose to strike it out, to propose that it should remain in. I shall, however, ask the Committee to omit that sub-section and to deal with the question as a whole. Well, our proposition really embodies the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to have a cheap, an effective, and an

    177
    independent mode of inquiry before compulsory powers are put in force. Remember that there is nothing new. These compulsory powers already exist under the Allotments Act. We take the compulsory powers gentlemen opposite themselves proposed, and put in this new mode of procedure. The hon. Gentleman said that the law of this country had always given some compensation in case of a man's land being taken compulorily. I admit that that practice has prevailed. I cannot admit it is the law; there is nothing in the Lands Clauses Act to justify such a charge; it has been the universal practice, and I may call it universal robbery—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, a universal robbery. I have no hesitation in saying that, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in regard to that. When the compulsory powers were put in force under the Artisans Dwellings Act to take land in Birmingham for public purposes, you may say that a fifth, if not a fourth, more was paid for the land than its real value. The Corporation were spending £250,000, and I say deliberately the town was robbed of at least £50,000 under the pretence of giving compensation. But there is the highest authority for this proposal, for under the Housing of the Working Classes Act the late Government themselves abolished compensation for compulsory purchase.
    MR. W. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman quotes the late Government, and I must say the only case in which compensation for compulsory purchase was abolished by the late Government was the case of taking over dwellings because they were insanitary. Does he ask the Committee to believe that a comparison can fairly be drawn between the case of land taken for allotments and houses taken because they were insanitary? [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] The right hon. Gentleman, himself would be the last to say there is any comparison, and I think he has made the comparison without realising the distinction.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not say the comparison is on all-fours, but the principle is the same. You take the land; and the mere fact that a man has property in an insanitary condition does not deprive him of the right to have its
    178
    full value; he should have the full value, but he should have nothing more. I shall be quite prepared to discuss the sub-section when it comes up. With regard to the other part of the case— the working of allotments—I confess I am not sufficient of a champion to compete with the hon. Gentleman. What I have to do—and I hope I have done it in a fair spirit—is to state the procedure of the Government in dealing with this case. My right hon. Friends on this Bench and behind me understand the matter better than I do, and, therefore, I do not propose to trouble the Committee any further on the subject, and I hope we may have the advantage of the advice and assistance of the Minister of Agriculture before we reach the new clause. But my first object is to vindicate the Government for the course they have taken, and, secondly, to say that in changing the mode of procedure we are carrying out what we believe to be a material and desirable reform which we are prepared to defend, and on those merits alone we ask the Committee to come to a decision.
    MR. CHAPLIN: No one, I am sure, will question the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman, not only in the speech he has just delivered to the Committee, but also throughout these proceedings, and I am also glad to be able to agree with him as to the supreme importance of the clause on which we are now engaged. That was the expression of the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think he exaggerated in any degree; but I am bound to say I must differ with him in the opinion as to the convenience of the Government making radical alterations in a clause they themselves considered to be of supreme importance, almost at the last moment before it is reached. It adds greatly to our difficulty in discussing this question within the strict confines and limits to be observed in this Committee, and on that ground I think, when the Government have made up their minds to make radical alterations in a clause of extreme importance, we have some ground of complaint against the Government in not having made up their minds in the first instance. The clause on which we are engaged at this moment raises two distinct questions: The question of the acquisition of land

    179
    by compulsion without its being necessary to come to Parliament. This is the first question, and the next question is that of compulsion being by hire—
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: No.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Well, it is raised. The right hon. Gentleman tells me it is not raised on this clause, and I must read out a paragraph of his own clause. Section (c) states—[Cries of "Agreed!"] It is not agreed, because the right hon. Gentleman says it does not raise the question.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am going to move the omission of that section.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Certainly; but he has no right to assume that because he proposes the House of Commons is going to act upon it. What we have to deal with is not the admirable intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, but to deal with the Bill as it is printed and is before us. The Bill most undoubtedly raises the question, and states that—
    " Where the land is proposed to be taken for allotments, the order may authorise the Council to hire compulsorily all or part of the land for a period not less than seven years,"
    and in the course of his observations that was the part to which he desired to direct the attention of the Committee. Let me in the first place deal with the precedent of laud being taken by compulsion without the definite sanction of Parliament. How does he support that? On two grounds: he gave a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and also alluded to an Irish precedent for legislation of this sort. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), I am not prepared to accept those remarks as a satisfactory or sufficient explanation of the policy he asks the House of Commons now to adopt; and I think there are several objections to it, if he will allow me to point them out. In the first place, that is an entirely new departure from the practice and precedents observed in Parliament, for I do not know how many generations. It is not a light matter to take property from one individual for the purpose of conferring it upon or handing it over to another. It should not be treated simply by the ipse dixit of the head of a Go-
    180
    vernment Department, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that for the proper and sufficient safeguarding of the owner of this property he should have the right to come to Parliament for the sanction of so extreme a proceeding, for that it is an extreme proceeding, whether right or wrong, I do not suppose any generation in this House would be inclined to dispute. But I go further and say in my humble opinion—and, if I remember aright, that was strongly urged by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Bill—this is a very great, and I am bound to say, an unfair responsibility to cast upon the head of any Government Department at all, and I have not heard any any answer offered by the right hon. Gentleman to that objection. I cannot say with what complacency he may view this addition to his views in the future, but I confess I shall not very much envy him when he has to be responsible for this violent taking of property from one person and handing it over to another, a proceeding that may happen I do not know how many times or in how many districts in the course of a year. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the owners of this kind of property may be expected to have some reasonable grounds for doubting whether the machinery proposed in this Bill is such as to give them fair and legitimate safeguards against robbery and interference of their rights as every person in this country, and every owner of property, has a right to expect. It has been said —and this is the only shadow of justification I have been able to collect in support of this policy of the right hon. Gentleman—that it is to avoid the great expense which accompanies the present plan. But is not that rather over-rated? Is it not the fact at the present time that if unreasonable opposition is offered to the compulsory acquisition, there are provisions by which all the expense that is incurred may be thrown upon the 'person who offers that unreasonable opposition? If the opposition is not unreasonable, then the expense is not thrown upon him; and it is to be contended for a moment that a man ought to be fined and mulcted in payment of expenses for offering opposition to the taking away of property which Parliament has judged not unreasonable? Seeing this proposition is made for the

    181
    first time in England, and that it is an entirely new departure from all the precedents and practices of the past, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will be of the opinion that a most inadequate defence has been offered for the proceedings the Government propose. Now, Sir, I come to the question of compulsory hire, and here the right hon. Gentleman told us with great truth the clause was brought in at the commencement of the Session, or, rather, when the Bill was introduced which contained this novel principle. He alluded to it in his speech. He said he had a conference on this important subject with the Minister of Agriculture, and he gave us a great deal of interesting information with regard to it, but there was one most curious omission which was all the more remarkable because it occurred on the introduction of the Bill, on the Second Reading of the Bill, and in the speech the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered, and that omission was this: that he had never given a shadow of a reason or justification for the adoption of this entirely new principle; from first to last not one single word has been given in any of the speeches delivered to justify the adoption of the policy of compulsory hiring. Is there anything more extraordinary in the whole history of Parliament? A Minister at the head of a great Government Department, charged with one important Bill of the Session, in dealing with a clause he considers to be of supreme importance, does not-think it necessary to offer one single reason or one word in support or justification of an entirely new policy in a Bill of the most extreme importance.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is quite true I said nothing about it, but it is equally true that the Secretary to the Local Government Board delivered a speech of great length on the Second Reading in which he dealt with the question of compulsory hiring.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The Secretary to the Local Government Board offered no justification for it, and he never gave a reason—[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] I have not his speech with me at this moment, but I have followed the Debates with tolerable care, and read
    182
    the speeches that have been delivered, and I say that the Committee are still in the dark as to the grounds on which the Government justify this complete departure from all principles hitherto sanctioned by this House. If the Government are unable to justify themselves for the adoption of this policy, I can point out — and, with the permission of the Committee, I desire to point out—some of the objections to this policy. Now, Sir, there is nothing new in the principle of the compulsory acquisition of land in this country for the purposes of public policy. That is a principle that has been adopted by all Parties in the State; it has been sanctioned by experience and by precedent as well; but the Committee is well aware that one of the primary obligations —the primary obligation of all—which accompanies the adoption of that principle is this: that pecuniary compensation must be made to the owner from whom the land is taken. You are now going to depart from that principle, and I would ask what pecuniary compensation are you to make to the man from whom the land is compulsorily hired? It is only to be paid by the rent, whether the owner of the land desires to sell or not. All you offer is the rent for seven years. The owner of the land might want to sell it; the land very possibly might be mortgaged, and a vast deal of the land in this country, unfortunately, is encumbered in that way. Suppose he desires to sell it; suppose his mortgage should be called in—and recollect that the very action you are taking now will probably precipitate action of that kind on the part of the mortgagee. If you are going to pass legislation by which you may compulsorily hire land which is mortgaged, the mortgagee may say to himself—"My security is not so good as it used to be; I will call in my mortgage;" and what is the position of the unfortunate owner of the land? You take his land on lease, and who would buy it subject to that condition? You render it absolutely valueless in the market. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board shakes his head. Has he ever been placed in that position, or has he ever had any experience of that kind?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER, Derby, Ilkeston): Not of mortgages.
    MR. CHAPLIN: If he were placed in that position he would probably find that his position was a most unfair one owing entirely to the action of the Government. You may' say the owner may sell his land subject to the value of the lease. Does anyone in this House pretend that the land compulsorily hired would be of the same value to sell as other land? Are you not compelling the unfortunate owner of the land to sell at a loss, and is not his loss the difference between the value of his land when leased under this compulsory hiring and the value it would otherwise possess? On what ground are you justified in inflicting this unfair loss on one kind and particular class of property in the country? I am bound to say, unless for good reasons, I have always held it is a very strong order and an objectionable policy to take land by compulsion from anyone; but to take it by compulsion and by hire, and not even to give the owner of the land the pecuniary compensation that has always been regarded as a primary obligation on you, and against the will of the owner, does appear to me to be the ne plus ultra of tyranny. Now, Sir, I want to know whether this is the time—whether it is a convenient time—and whether it is expedient to adopt a totally new principle of this kind? What is the object that you have in view? I understand it to be the creation of a new class of small owners, and to bring back upon the land a number of that class which formerly gained their livelihood upon it. I was not long ago the author of a Bill which had this object for its purpose, and certainly it does not rest in my mouth to throw any difficulty in the way of a policy of this kind; but still, I cannot shut my eyes or ears to the most recent information we have had on this subject, and I would ask the Committee to consider what is the information we have recently had on this subject from the Labour Commission now sitting. I do not know whether any hon. Members have read with care and attention the Report of some of the Sub-Commissioners; but, if not, I can assure them
    184
    there is a vast amount of most interesting information to be obtained from them. They deal directly with the question of allotments and with the question of small holdings, and I hope I shall not be trespassing unduly in the distant references I must make to the new clause placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman. He proposes to increase the size of the allotment from one to four acres. [" Hear, hear! "] "Hear, hear!" hon. Gentlemen opposite say, but what do these Commissioners tell us? They say that men in work and in receipt of regular wages find that a quarter of an acre is the most they can cultivate with advantage. That is the information you will find from every parish in every quarter of England; that is the information laid on your Table at this moment from the most recent inquiries that have been made. What do they say with regard to small holdings? Is it the difficulty of acquiring land? Nothing of the kind. There has been land offered in quantities over and over again for the provision of small holdings, but your difficulty in this case is applications for small holdings. Again, these Sub-Commissioners will tell you that in all the different parts of England, where they have made examination, the application for small holdings have been very few and far between. I remember quite well that, during the passage of that Bill through the House, I warned the House over and over again, speaking from some knowledge and experience of the subject myself, it could only be regarded as a great experiment, with regard to the success of which no one could possibly prophecy in the future; and though I was most anxious that it should succeed, I was unable to hold out any better hopes than that. And there is another good reason why, at this moment, it should not have been availed of. There has been, as everyone knows, a very great, a very deplorable, and a very unfortunate accession of agricultural depression. It has been bad enough for the last eight or 10 years, God knows, already; but within the last year, no one knows better than my right hon. Friend, who is presiding over the Commission on Agriculture, that the declarations we receive are deplorable, not to say alarming, in the extreme; and, under those circumstances, it does

    185
    seem to me you are choosing perhaps the most unfortunate time for the adoption of a wholly novel principle like this, and with regard to which it is impossible for anyone to forecast what is likely to happen in the future. I have no objection myself to the hiring of land by Local Authorities, provided it be voluntary, though there is an objection to it even when it is voluntary, and that is, that there is one class in Ireland that is always looked upon and regarded with great suspicion—namely, the middleman. But in this case, in Eng-land, you are going deliberately to create a middleman; you are going to bring in between the owner of the land and the man who hires it another authority. What is the reason of that? I can see in it an advantage to the landlord who desires to let his land, because he gets all the advantage which he derives from the greater security of the Local Authority. But as regards the tenant who is ultimately to hire it, I see no advantage. It is far better for him that he should hire the land first hand than through a Local Authority. As to the reason for the introduction of this wholly novel principle, that is a point upon which we are absolutely in the dark. Is the number of allotments in this country absolutely unsatisfactory; is the increase unsatisfactory; has it not exceeded all that was anticipated or hoped for at the time the Act became law? I do not know the number of allotments at this moment; but I do know that not long ago, according to some Returns which had been collected, the increase in the allotments was something enormous after the Acts were passed. I do press on the Government that whatever else may happen we shall at least be favoured with some justification for the adoption of so wholly novel a principle as compulsory hiring. Sir, I do appeal to the Committee—I would appeal to them upon the grounds of the commonest justice as between man and man in this country—not to submit the owner of one particular class of property in this country to a process which he could only describe as one by which their property was to be taken from them against their consent and against their will without what I hold is the primary obligation of the Government or the State—namely,
    186
    that of making them an adequate pecuniary compensation.
    SIR W. FOSTER: We have had some interesting speeches from hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and those speeches, especially the last, have been addressed to the serious departure we have made. We admit our proposals are new, and we think the very fact that they are new will commend them to a large number of Members in this House who are dissatisfied with the existing means of obtaining land for public purposes. If, Sir, no Government ever made a new proposal we should never make any progress. The right hon. Gentleman himself supported a new proposal in regard to the acquisition of land. The late Government went to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham for that blessed word "compulsion," and they introduced it into their Allotments Act of 1887. But they introduced it into that Act in such a cumbersome and expensive form that they found it would not work, and so they brought in the Act of 1890, in order to make their compulsion more effective. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side are, therefore, the very parents of compulsion on the Statute Book of the country. As to the system of compulsory hiring, we are asked why we have introduced it into this Bill. We have introduced it because it is an inexpensive system, and because it will enable the labourers of the villages to obtain land at less cost than by purchase. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so anxious for the economical working of this Bill in the parishes ought to admire and advocate the hiring system rather than the purchase system. Then, with regard to the question of the leasing of the land, surely it is much better for the landowner, especially if his land is under mortgage, that he should have the local authority for his lessee than the individual labourer or the small holder, for he will have better security for his rent, and will, no doubt, be treated liberally by the Local Authority as to necessary compensation when the lease runs out. Then again, it will enable the labourers to get the land at a much cheaper rent than if they had to purchase from the owners. It is an advantage also that the land should be leased, because in

    187
    many places the labourers prefer to be tenants of the Local Authorities rather than of any individual. That is a very natural feeling; for it gives them a position of comparative independence, which they are looking forward anxiously for under this Bill. Let us go back for a moment to the other questions which have been put before us. The question has been asked us, what justification have we for the compulsory provision? Now, I do not think it is necessary that I should defend the principle of compulsion, seeing that right hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves placed it on the Statute Book. But the compulsory powers which they introduced are exceedingly difficult to apply. We were told at the time that they were simple and inexpensive. But, contrary to what we were led to expect, the working of those compulsory powers have proved neither simple nor inexpensive, and we seek by this Bill to devise a system which will be simpler and much less expensive. In this respect we have shown a tender regard for the interests of the landowners — a most tender regard, because instead of enabling Local Authorities to act through the County Council we substitute the Local Government Board. We take away the procedure of the Provisional Order made by Parliament, which is in all cases most expensive, and costs several hundreds of pounds when there is an obstinate person to deal with. In fact, this compulsion only refers to obstinate people. When a landowner is willing to give allotments, there is, of course, no compulsion; but an obstinate landowner might fight against allotments by all the means in his power, and run up an intolerable bill of costs, except there was a speedy method of compulsion. We, therefore, do away with the Parliamentary procedure and bring in the Local Government Board. Our proposal undoubtedly means the imposition of another heavy burden on that Department. But we feel that the introduction of the Local Government Board will always enable an appeal to be made against any injustice. The Board is a Public Department, and it can at any time be arraigned in the House of Commons. In any case, it is better that the powers and duties in question should rest
    188
    on a Public Body responsible to this House, than on a County Council which is not directly represented here. The Mover of the Amendment stated that the powers in the clause are not necessary. That is not so. I will tell you why we think them necessary. They are necessary, because in some places the labourers have been unable to obtain land under the existing Acts, and in not a few cases where they have obtained it after years of waiting they have had to pay an excessive rent. These, I think, are very good reasons why we should seek for a better and easier way for getting the labourers on the land. I can give several instances in which the difficulty of getting land has been very painful to the agricultural labourers. Since I have been in the House to-day I have received information of a village in Suffolk (Stuston) where the labourers have been trying in vain for three years to obtain land. The County Council in this case have been trying to help the labourers to get these allotments, but they have been unsuccessful, because the owners of the land, the trustees of an hospital, have refused to let the land, except on such terms as the County Council could not accept. Take another case. At Melbourne, in Cambridgeshire, an application was made to a Board of Guardians for allotments 18 months ago, and it was only last month that the Board, after much pressure, was induced to make inquiries. In a place in Somersetshire the labourers have been trying for four or five years to get land for allotments; in a place in Warwickshire they had to struggle for more than six years, and in a village in Dorset for upwards of seven years. When we have these instances of delay and difficulty in the way of the labourers obtaining allotments, surely there ought to be some method of making the Act work more quickly. There is a land hunger now amongst the labourers; it is, I think, a very legitimate and a very praiseworthy land hunger, and ought to be satisfied in a more expeditious fashion than the present Act allows. Then as to compulsion, I do not believe that compulsion, if put upon the Statute Book in this or in a more drastic form, will be often put in force, because with the strong compulsion in the background resistance to legitimate demands will not be maintained.

    189
    The right hon. Member for Bordesley has had some experience of the difficulty of carrying out the purchase of land under the present compulsory system. Speaking in the Debate in 1887, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "We went through a painful experience in Birmingham under that Act (the Lands Clauses Act) when we went to an expense of £1,500,000 for the purchase of land. Certainly had we known what the operation of the Lands Clauses Act was going to be that enterprise or undertaking would never have been entered into."
    This is an experience of the expensive methods for the acquisition of land. The Corporation of Birmingham entered on a scheme under the Artizans Dwellings Act for the improvement of an insanitary area, and they would never have entered upon it had they known that the acquisition of land would have been so costly. We say that our method is as cheap as the present method is expensive. All the methods introduced by the Act of 1890 have proved to be expensive. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said I was not quite fair in quoting on the Second Reading of this Bill only one case to show how expensive the present methods for acquiring land are. But it is the only case in which the Act has been applied; and the example has proved so serious that County Councils are afraid to put the Act in force. In that case, in order to get 14 acres of land under the present cumbrous and expensive method, the Local Authority had to spend some £330 or £340 on law expenses alone, because the owner resisted, and the whole cost of the legal proceedings in the case amounted, I believe, to £1,500. That I say is a scandalous condition of things, and shows that compulsory methods ought to be made simpler and less expensive. I do not want to apply them in the most stringent form. On the contrary, I would rather that the whole thing should be done by agreement as between neighbours. [Ironical laughter.] Well, I ought to know my own sentiments better than the hon. Gentleman opposite who interrupt. I have denounced the landowners who have not done their duty to the labourers, and I have denounced your Act because it is ineffective for its purpose; but that is no reason why I
    190
    should not desire to see this matter settled without a resort to compulsion.
    MR. W. LONG: The hon. Gentleman has refused to admit that we are entitled to claim that we have extended the allotments system; and now he claims for himself that he desires that these allotments should be acquired without compulsion.
    SIR W. FOSTER: That is a new-question, but I am prepared to meet it. I never admitted that all the allotments granted are due to the Allotments Act. I do not think they are. I believe they are due to the agitation set on foot by the right hon. Member for Bordesley some years ago and carried on ever since. I have information that that is so in many eases. A landlord told me the other day that there had been allotments on his estates for 100 years, that 25 years ago the facilities for obtaining them were not made use of, but that the moment the agitation began there came a desire for allotments. In Scotland, where the Act did not apply, the number of allotments increased in a still greater ratio than in England. Therefore, I am correct in saying that the increase in the number of allotments is not due to the Act of the late Government, but is due to the awakening of the agricultural population to the benefits to be derived from the cultivation of land. That compulsion is desirable is proved by the very Return from which the ex-Minister for Agriculture quoted. We find in that Return that there are 4,000 parishes in which there are no allotments, and 2,000 in which allotments do not exceed a quarter of an acre. That is not a condition of things which ought to exist. If the labourers want more land they ought to be able to get it. Again, I would like to point this out. Land purchased by agreement is generally purchased at a very high price. We all know that whenever land is wanted for public purposes, such as for a sanitary improvement, the price of that land immediately goes up. Why is that? Because there are no stringent compulsory powers in the background to enable the land to be taken at a fair price. What we want is that the price should be such as would be agreed upon, in the words of

    191
    the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with some compensation for disturbance. I have looked over the cases since the Allotments Act came into operation. I find that in certain counties an average of £62 an acre has been paid. Such a price makes it impossible for the Local Authorities to give the land to the labourer at a rent which he can afford to pay. Why should an agricultural labourer pay £4 an acre when the farmer at the other side of the hedge is paying only £2 or 30s. That is the condition of things we have got to remedy, and we say it will be remedied if you put on the Statute Book strong measures for the compulsory purchase of land. I do not think I can do better, in answer to some of the arguments used on the other side, than to quote an extract from a speech, which puts the case most effectively—
    "When the community has to take land for any public purpose it shall be enabled to enter upon its possession at a fair price. That is the real difficulty we have to overcome. That is the crux which stands in the way of our opponents; that is the mouthful which the landowners cannot swallow, although it is the condition which has earned for the promoters of this association charges of robbery and confiscation being made against them. Robbery and confiscation! Why, I should have thought that the terms might rather be applied to those who are not satisfied with the fair price for their property, and who insist upon exacting an extortionate value from the necessities of the community. I confess I have had very large experience of the purchase of property by local authorities, and as far as that has gone in every case that has come to my knowledge the ratepayers have been mulcted of from 15 to 50 per cent. in addition to the real value of the property, and in consequence of the system under which they have to purchase it. It is estimated, I believe, that the railways of this country have cost £50,000,000 sterling over and above the true value of the land which has been taken, and owing to similar causes. What does that mean? It means that at this moment the trade of the country is burdened with an annual tax of £2,000,000 of money, which is the price which commerce pays to landowners for the privilege of improving their property. I think myself the time has come when at all events this form of ransom should cease, and that it should no longer be considered one of the rights of property to go on blackmailing the public wherever their wants and necessities require them to enter into the bargain."
    I recommend these words of wisdom from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to the studious attention of hon. Members opposite.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the Secretary to the Local Government Board had made a strong speech, but a speech had seldom been made with less evidence to support it. The hon. Gentleman referred to 4,000 parishes in which the labourers were demanding allotments and could not get them. What was his authority for the statement? Could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether in any one of the parishes to which he had referred an attempt had been made to supply allotments by means of the existing machinery? If that system had not been tried the failure of the present Act had not been established. Surely an Act ought to be tried before it was condemned as ineffective. He would also ask whether the opinion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham on this subject was expressed before or after the Allotments Act, 1887?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Before.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he should ask why this opinion had been brought forward to prove that the present system was inexpensive and ineffective, and had failed altogether, when it was delivered before the Act of 1887 came into operation?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Although the opinion was expressed before the Act, the procedure which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham denounced is the procedure which is now in the Allotments Act.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had drawn strongly on his imagination in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman's point was that the present procedure had been ineffective and expensive, but he had left out the very important provisions of Section 4 of the Act, which provided that, in the case of vexatious proceedings, Parliament should award costs accordingly to the promoters of the opponents of the Bill. That was the machinery by which vexatious opposition to the granting of allotments was perverted. The Committee should remember that they were not now dealing with any amendment of the Allotments Act, but with a total upheaval of the law of the compulsory acquirement of land. It has been said that the land

    193
    ought to be obtainable as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The universal experience of Parliament was that where they introduced compulsion they stopped voluntary action, and he would like to call the attention of the Government to what the House did two years ago. They had a Bill introduced to deal with ranges. The Local Government Board was not the only Department that wished to get rid of the troublesome proceeding of Provisional Orders—the War Office and other Departments were most anxious to attain that object, but the utmost to which the Government had gone was in the case of the Defence Act, but even in the case of the Defence Act by the authority of Parliament it was requisite to have the consent of two Departments, the War Office and the Treasury, and also the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell him it was necessary in the case of allotments, which were being granted voluntarily every day, to adopt a procedure which they would not sanction under the Defence Act for purposes of the realm? The Committee of the House of Commons considered the question carefully with regard to Volunteers, and what was the position with regard to them? At this moment if a Volunteer force was absolutely unable to shoot owing to the absence of a range, they could only proceed under the Land Clauses Act, and, if necessary, by way of a Private Bill before Parliament. He could not help thinking that to dispense with the authority of Parliament in this matter was a most dangerous precedent. Might he ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board what he meant by saying that Parliament would control the action of the Local Government Board in this matter? There would be no appeal to the House of Commons; how could there be?
    SIR W. FOSTER: On the Estimates.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, that was to take a most convenient method, to discuss all the Provisional Orders on the right hon. Gentleman's salary, and by a Party majority on a Division the whole question was to be settled. The hon. Gentleman was simply playing with the Committee, for he knew perfectly well that was a machinery entirely beneath the
    194
    consideration of Parliament altogether. He said they were putting a most invidious and dangerous power in the hands of the President of the Local Government Board. They would lay him open to every kind of public pressure; they could not have an inquiry in this House in which Members unconnected with the locality could be heard, but they had an inquiry in camera, when a decision would be given by those who had no local knowledge at all.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There would have to be a local public inquiry.
    MR. BRODRICKasked why they should not extend the system to the taking of land for other purposes? They had heard a denouncement of the method of taking land under a system of Provisional Orders, and would the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell them that this was the general policy of the Government? He submitted this was a question to be considered as a whole. What was done in the case of allotments ought to be done in the case of the defence of the realm, and to introduce this great change here was a gratuitous overloading of the Bill. It was a challenge to discussion, and made it incumbent on them to endeavour to arouse the attention of the Committee to what they thought a grave error based on the alleged failure of the existing law without any evidence in support of the contention.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that hon. Members opposite must be a little tender to the Members of the Government on this point; they should remember that what they were discussing now was the general electioneering clause. On this clause all their hopes depended. Failing this clause, there was hardly one of them would be able to say they had secured what they promised. He, for one, hoped this clause would pass, and he would tell hon. Members why. This Bill was full of disappointments, but there was no disappointment that would ever be known to the Liberals equal to the one this clause would bring about. They had heard of the failure of the Act of 1887, and they had had the case of St. Faith's mentioned. It was the only one. [An hon. MEMBER: Quite enough.] Quite enough too, but they were not told that

    195
    the landlord was fined to an extent of £1,000 for her opposition. That was quite right too, and they would find that no landlord was likely to follow the example of this obstinate woman, who paid for her obstinacy by a fine equal to four or five times the amount of the fee-simple she refused to give up. Why did not hon. Members quote other cases? Fortunately few compulsory eases had been enforced, but why not quote the one in Somersetshire which cost £2 10s., and that included a return ticket of the clerk to London that was quite unnecessary, so that they might really quote the case of Somersetshire as costing about £1. There were one or two cases of that kind, but they did not hear about them. They heard about St. Faith's, and he thought it was a satisfactory one for the supporters of the Act of 1887, as it showed that any landowner who gave unreasonable opposition to the requirements of the locality was very heavily punished for it. They were told to-night that the labourers preferred to be tenants, but that was a mere assertion. Everyone knew that with the best intentions Local Authorities must be very strict landlords, and that while private owners might reduce the rent or remit it altogether, no Local Authority dared do that, therefore from their very position they were the very hardest landlords to be under. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board quoted one case, that of one of the largest Corporations in England. But why was this talk about tenancy so much indulged in by hon. Members? They were afraid to see the creation of a large number of small owners. The independence of the small owner did not suit their book, they would condemn these labourers to be under what must of necessity be the hardest kind of landlords. Then the hon. Member said they had said on the passing of the Bill of 1887 that they had provided a simple and inexpensive method of compulsorily acquiring land. He did not think that was ever said, because everyone knew, or ought to know, that no method of compulsion could be either simple or inexpensive; all compulsion must be expensive. [An hon. MEMBER: Not in Somersetshire.] There was no doubt
    196
    that land taken under compulsion must be expensive, but must be specially expensive in this direction—that it must always demand a higher rent from the labourers who took it; it was absolutely impossible that land taken by compulsion could be cheap to the labourers. They were told about the difficulties of getting land under the Act of 1887. Of course, it had been the stock argument and stock speech of hon. Members in rural districts that the Act of 1887 had been a sham and had worked badly, and that they were bound to try to make it better. He did not say there were not exceptions, but in almost every case where there were six labourers and upwards who required land they could get it, and he challenged hon. Members to produce cases where any number of labourers who bonâ fide required land had not been able to get it. He admitted there had been delay, but that had come from the fact that the present Sanitary Authorities were not so active as they should be in entertaining the application. That, however, was not the fault of the Act of 1887, because when the Act was passed there was no other authority existing but the Sanitary Authority except Quarter Sessions, and no one would care to put it in their hands. But this Bill created District Councils instead of the Sanitary Authority, and they would find that that would be an accelerating force in carrying out this Act. He understood, and he hoped rightly, from his right hon. Friend that the provisions of the Act of 1887 were not put an end to. If it were, and he said it advisedly—["Hear, hear!"]— yes, but they were to settle this matter and know where they were—and he said it advisedly that if the Act of 1887 and its provisions were interfered with in any way, then this clause, standing by itself, would take away the hopes of labourers acquiring allotments in five parishes out of ten. [An hon. MEMBER: It does not.] Fortunately it did not, and the labourers might be thankful that the powers of that Act were not taken away. It was said that his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had stated he was in favour of giving these powers into the hands of Local Authorities. Yes, but what authority? The giving it into the hands of a Parish Council was one thing,

    197
    and the giving it into the hands of the District Council where a Id. rate would bring in from £300 to £1,200 a year was quite another thing. Under the new clause that had been submitted the application to the District Councils was done away with and the Parish Council could apply direct to the London School Board. What happened then? The London School Board required the Parish Councils to go through with the prescribed preliminaries, to advertise, to serve notice upon all concerned to hold a local inquiry. The advertising and printing alone that the Parish Council would have to do would almost swallow up a 1d. rate upon the usual rateable value. The London School Board would have to send down and make a local inquiry, and what had they to do? The Inspector or arbitrator had to award compensation for what? Taking the new clause of his right hon. Friend the arbitrator was to allow compensation for severance, for breaking up old pasture, for a tenant giving up his holding, for other incidents connected with it, for transferring it at the end of the tenancy. Add all this to the cost of the land and see what the labourers would get. Why the clause would never be put in force. Take a parish—and he was speaking of nearly half the parishes of the 13,000 they were dealing with—of, say, 500 inhabitants where the majority did not want allotments, but something like 100 of them did, as the Parish Council was elected by the majority was it likely they would take up this question of compulsory hiring in face of all the expense they would have to incur? If the minority wished to obtain allotments they would have to fall back on the Act of 1887, under which any six labourers might apply and the Parish Council must give them allotments. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if six labourers made application to the District Council, the District Council must send down an Inspector, and when he found that the majority were against it what was he to do? Was he to supply the minority with allotments, and over-ride the wishes of the Parish Council? He feared the right hon. Gentleman had done a serious damage to the position of the labourers who were in the minority, because, under the
    198
    Act, six labourers or more could make application, and the District Council would be bound to find them allotments; but under the clause as it stood the District Council would find itself between two opposing forces—one a small minority wanting allotments, and the other the Parish Council, elected by the majority who did not care for allotments, and that was a very serious difficulty introduced by this Bill. He would refer hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench to the enormous increase in the allotments since the Act of 1887, and it was impossible to contradict the statement that the Act was becoming more operative every day. It was the drift of the agitators to condemn the Act of 1887, but to say it was a sham and a failure was to say that which did not accord with the facts themselves which came under their notice every day. He contended two things — that this compulsory clause brought forward by his right hon. Friend would be scarcely ever used, and if it should be used it would result in very high prices. The Act of 1887 was in danger, and the labourers' power of getting allotments was greatly lessened by the proposals of the Government, inasmuch as while the Act of 1887 allowed six or any number above six to get allotments, the Government were now setting up an opposing force in the same parish.
    MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)said, that, while the Secretary to the Local Government Board said a good deal about the wickedness of landlords not giving the land, and the hardships the labourers suffered under in having to pay high prices, he forgot to tell them the thousands of cases in which the landlords had given land at a very low rent. In his own county there was not the slightest difficulty in getting allotments, and they were given at very low rents, with which the labourers were perfectly well satisfied. There was one case of appeal to the County Council, and possibly the hon. Gentleman would hear of it. The labourers could not get the land they wanted, and appealed to the County Council. The land was practically in the town, and was worth £600 an acre for building purposes, and that being the case, it was outrageous to

    199
    think that the County Council or any other authority should be expected to take that at its high value, and re-let it to the labourers at £4 an acre. There was another point in the hon. Gentleman's speech he should like to notice, and that was with regard to the argument that the labourers would much prefer to be tenants of a Local Board than of a private owner. His experience was quite the contrary. He thought not only labourers, but farmers also, would sooner rent from a private individual than from any Corporation, for the reason that frequently in bad times the labourers' rents for these allotments were forgiven altogether by private owners, or reductions made from 25 to 50 per cent., whereas, if they held from a Local Board, the Local Board would be obliged to take the whole rent, having no power to grant those great remissions which private owners frequently and willingly made. As to the question of taking land compulsorily, they had heard of the great wickedness of the landowners in not giving the land, and of the hardship to the labourers in not getting it; but there was one class which had been ignored altogether, and that was the occupiers. Why should the occupiers be ignored? Frequently in a parish, even in these days, the whole of the land was occupied; and why should the best part of a man's land be taken compulsorily and given to the labourers? Before they took this land compulsorily they ought to consult the farmer and occupier from whom they took it. The land the labourers wanted was that portion which was nearest to the village, and that was usually occupied already by the farmers; and if this power to acquire land compulsorily was given they should find that the piece of land which the farmers most valued, which was nearest to the village, and probably the easiest to work—and which might be a piece of pasture land —would be taken compulsorily from him, and no extra compensation given him. That would be most unfair. He objected to laud being taken in this compulsory way; and if it was so taken, then they ought to give some compensation, both to the owner and occupier for having taken, perhaps, the best part of the farm. The land which would be compulsorily acquired under this Act would be the
    200
    land nearest the village, which was the most important part of a man's estate, and, certainly, of his farm.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: You will get its full value.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, they got its full agricultural value, but that was not its full value. If they valued a farm they did not value every field, but so many acres at so much. One field differed from another, and the field that probably would be taken by the Parish Council might be the best field in the farm.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: They would have to pay for the best land the best price for it.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, then they would reduce the value of the rest of the farm. When they had a farm made up of fields of different kinds, if they took away one particular field they might spoil the whole farm and seriously interfere with its letting value. He maintained, therefore, if they compulsorily took the best land some extra compensation ought to be paid for it. If land were wanted surely it might be taken by agreement, as it had been in hundreds and thousands of instances already. Why should they put in these arbitrary powers to the Parish Council in regard to purchase? If they were to take land compulsorily it ought to be by a clause under the Bill of 1887. Land had been acquired that way, and, as the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division had said, on very economical terms. If they were to require land by the Compulsory Clauses of this Bill then they might benefit one class, but they would be injuring two classes, who were bound up altogether with the laud. Why they should benefit one class and almost ruin two classes who lived on the laud and by the land he could not understand. He hoped before this clause were passed certain Amendments would be agreed to, including one he had suggested, to the effect that the arbitrator should give such extra compensation as he should think just. He was afraid the valuer would only put the agricultural value on the land.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: What we propose is that the arbitrator should value the selling value of the property, and give compensation for the severance, and

    201
    from the injurious effects which the taking of the land may have on the remaining property on the vendor. After you have put it down you ought not to be able to pile up another 10 or 20 per cent. for compulsion.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, he rather approved of the new clause of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice, but he was referring to this clause. They had passed Sub-section (b), which enacted that the arbitrator, in fixing his award for compensation, should not make any additional allowance in respect of the land being compulsorily taken.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: He must have included the severance.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, all that he could say was that they were going to tie the arbitrator's hands, and when the proper time came he should move after the word "compulsorily," the insertion of the words —
    " Such purchase money as he shall think just in consequence of the compulsory purchase."
    He hoped, before the Committee decided to take land in a compulsory way, both from the owners and occupiers, they would remember that there were three classes who lived on the land—namely, the owners, the occupiers, and the labourers, and that they would not interfere for the advantage of one class at the expense of the others.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The right hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage of this discussion invited us to consider the general principles involved in this clause. [Cries of "Divide!"] We have been discussing it, I think, some hour and a half to two hours, and we are just really only entering on the discussion of the most important principles involved in this clause, and I am surprised at the impatience of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they will not allow us, without some show of irritation, to continue the discussion now. We have, on both sides I think, shown a disposition to extend the allotment system in this country to the best of our ability. I think, Sir, all sides of the House have given expression to a desire to make the existing law operate as far as possible, and, where it seems to fail, to try and improve it in
    202
    order to make it operative. We on this side of the House are not wedded to the existing system of allotments. What we are bound to do is to ask the Government, before they try to amend the present Acts, to show in what respect they have failed, and how any proposals they make on the subject are calculated to improve the operation of these Allotment Acts. Two questions have been raised in this discussion. First of all, it was the hiring question. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly clear statement of his own position with regard to this question and the allotments question. He told us that he did not really understand much of the working of the allotments system in the country districts. He was perfectly frank in that respect, but it seemed to me that he understood a great deal more than his colleague the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and I think, also, if we were to be favoured with the presence of the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence, of course, we all regret—especially its cause—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would add any particular knowledge to that which the President of the Local Government Board possesses on the subject. I am perfectly prepared to take the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and he says we are not entitled to discuss this question at the present moment because he is going to move the omission of that sub-section dealing with hiring. I should like to remind him of what took place on the Local Government Act of 1888. In that Act there were certain clauses proposed about licensing. The Government of the day said they were withdrawn. Did the Opposition of the day say they ought to be withdrawn without discussion? No; they insisted on discussing them.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: We wished to keep one clause in.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Quite so; but after we put our Amendments on the Paper, saying we were going to give them up, every one of those clauses was discussed with ample fulness, just as much as though we were going to persevere with them. Upon this subject, of course, we have considered very carefully the proposals of the Government contained in the

    203
    Bill; but now they have sprung upon us, at two days' notice, totally new proposals which amount to a complete revision of the Allotments Act on this subject. Quite true, we are not going to discuss them now; but I want to say it is perfectly unreasonable for the Government to complain of our discussing the matter now when they spring upon us, at a moment's notice, totally new proposals dealing with the subject. I pass from that to the other question involved in this clause—namely, the intervention of Parliament. That is also new to us. It is intended by this proposal to get rid of the system we have applied in all similar cases of Provisional Orders. I thought the system of Provisional Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land was a deeply-rooted Parliamentary tradition— a tradition to which Parliament was determined to adhere; but I am disappointed in this expectation. Two or three years ago, as my hon. Friend has already indicated to the Committee, there was a proposal on the part of one of the Departments of the State to continue the practice of enabling them to take land without Provisional Orders for the purpose of the defence of the country. Yet that Department had actually to alter its practice altogether, and to propose to Parliament a Bill which was passed afterwards into an Act, by which means the compulsory acquisition of land for this purpose was limited to Provisional Orders to be confirmed by Parliament. What is the objection to the system as it exists at the present moment? The Secretary to the Local Government Board mentioned one or two objections that occurred to him, and one was the dilatory method. Well, Sir, it is, I know, not a very quick method, but he will forgive me saying I am not persuaded that any method of proceeding through the Local Government Board would be any quicker. In either case there has got to be local inquiry. Local inquiry through the agency of the County Council is made in a perfectly careful manner by people thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and although undoubtedly the machinery to put that into operation may take a little time, the machinery of inquiry by the Local Government Board cannot be any quicker,
    204
    and I am confident there is no conclusive ground for believing the machinery of the Local Government Board would be any quicker than the machinery now in existence. What else did the hon. Member say? He said that, according to his experience, the allotment owners preferred to be tenants of a Local Authority rather than the tenants of the great landlords in the country. That is not my experience. On the contrary, everybody on this side of the House knows perfectly well—I do from personal experience—that whereas we should only be too glad to pass over our allotments to the tenants to the Local Authorities, and let them take over the land and let the allotments, in the first place, the Local Authority do not want to take them over, and, in the second place, the tenants do not want to be transferred. That is our conclusive experience, and I venture to express the strong opinion that, so far as our experience goes at present, the tenants do not desire to become the tenants of the Local Authority, but prefer to remain as they are at present. I venture, therefore, to say that no case has been made out for changing the present system to the method proposed by the Government. What they desire is to introduce a new method, not because they think it will be a better method, but because by introducing this clause into the Bill they have got a plausible clause upon which to go to the General Election. I do not hesitate to say that the sum and substance of the clause has no other meaning. It is solely intended to be a means to the country of showing they are better able to deal with the allotment clauses than hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. For my part, I must say that every one of the statements that has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the present system of allotments cannot be supported by facts. It is not true the labourers cannot get the land. It is true there has been certain delay, and in some cases very much more delay than is necessary; but it is true also that if they had chosen to proceed by the ordinary methods of the existing Allotments Act, they might have obtained allotments years before they have actually obtained them. It is not true that the cost of these allotments is, as a rule, excessive.

    205
    I do not deny that there may be individual cases where the rent of the allotment has been higher than it ought to be. That, I am sure, is the kind of case everybody in the House desires to get rid of, and we all desire that the cost of allotments should be reasonable. I submit that no evidence whatever has been brought before this House to show for a moment, taking the country as a whole, that the rents of allotments have been excessive, and upon that ground no case whatever has been made for altering the law. These are the grounds upon which I say that the Amendments now proposed by the Government are wholly unnecessary, and I, for my part, am certainly prepared to vote against them.
    MR. LOGANsaid, right hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken very great exception to the few remarks made by the Secretary to the Local Government Board. He had, no doubt, before this question of the land was settled, they on his side of the House should have to say things which were not altogether palatable to their opponents. It would be easier, of course, to say things only which were palatable to their opponents; but he, for one, felt he had a duty to perform, and that duty was to say in that House what his constituents wished him to say, and if in doing so be had to utter things which were not altogether palatable he would say to hon. Members opposite, in the words of England's greatest thinker, it was not he who said it, but bitter voices outside said it, and these voices would have to be heard in that House whoever else kept silent. The right hon. Member for Sleaford said that no justification whatever had been offered for the compulsory hiring of land under this clause. The greatest justification existed at the present time; and as a justification for this clause he would point to the miserable condition of thousands of men in this country to-day —men who were working for a miserable 10s., 11s., 12s., or 13s. a week with no prospect but the workhouse in their old age. He did not intend to enlarge upon that subject, but he would like to say this: that if every agricultural labourer in this country was to be in a prosperous condition, then he would have to be raised from his present miserable condi-
    206
    tion of dependence which compelled him to work for the first man that offered him a job at any wage that man liked to offer. Before the agricultural labourer would be in that position in which he (Mr. Logan) wished to see him he would have to have land easy of access—close at his own door; and it was because this clause would give him this that it had his most hearty support. The right hon. Member for Sleaford, in complaining of the compulsory clauses of this Act, said that what he desired to see was common justice as between man and man. That was all they (the Liberals) desired, and that was all the agricultural labourers of England desired. They had recognised the absolute truth of what the London Times in its better days said—that the first charge upon any land is the maintenance of those reared on that laud, and it was because the Government recognised and had embodied that principle in this Bill that it had his hearty support and the support of those he had the honour to represent.
    MR. BUCKNILLsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had never said that the Bill would guarantee to secure land close to the door of every labouring man. That was an exaggeration— and an inaccurate exaggeration. He had never intervened in any Debate in Committee on this Bill, but he did ask permission to make a few observations at the present time, not because he wanted — as some hon. Members seemed desirous to do— to address his constituents through the medium of this House, but because he had a few observations to offer in good temper, and he hoped not in bad sense. The President of the Local Government Board had said, in the best possible good nature, that he honestly believed the present system was dilatory and expensive. If it was dilatory it certainly was not entirely the fault of the machinery, but of those persons who were themselves dilatory in setting this machinery in motion. Again, it had been proved to be not so expensive as some hon. Members said it was, and the machinery the Government proposed to substitute for it would be almost, if not quite, as expensive as the machinery which now existed.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA LOAN.

    REPORT.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.): I do hope that hon. Members will allow the Report to be taken to-night. There will be opportunity for discussion later on.
    MR. GOSCHEN: We shall object to it being taken, because it appears to us the objects ought to be explained before we have ah opportunity of discussion on the Second Reading. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see to it that the Report is brought on at a time that will enable the Under Secretary to make his statement, and when it would be fairly possible for him to be followed in his general explanation, and after that I do not think it is the desire of anybody on this side of the House to debate the Report at any length. But we ought to have a full statement of why £10,000,000 are required for the Indian Government, and the House put in possession of the facts, so that we can debate the matter on the Second Reading. Any statement which would be made at the present hour would necessarily be brief, so that I trust the other business will be stopped on some other day at a reasonably early hour to enable the Under Secretary to make his statement upon the Report. We should not wish at this stage to have any long discussion, but we wish to have his statement fully before us, so as to be able to discuss the matter on the Second Reading. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that this is a reasonable request. As I have said, we have no desire whatever at this stage to have a prolonged discussion, but the Report ought to be brought on at a time when a full statement may be put before the public of the objects of the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): I may give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that there shall be an adequate
    208
    opportunity for discussion, as far as it is important. This is not an unusual measure. The Indian Government has on several occasions asked for loans of this amount, and even greater. We have thought that it would be better to get over the preliminary stages connected with the Bill, and have the discussion on the Second Reading. I am told that the practice has recently been to take discussion not on the preliminary Motion and Report, but on the Second Reading. In 1885, when a similar Bill to this was introduced, the discussion was taken in that way. We will not, however, go on with the Report to-night, and I will take care before next week that some arrangement is made which shall be convenient for both sides of the House. We have no desire to avoid a Debate.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I only intervene in this Debate because a great many years ago, when I was Under Secretary of State for India, we introduced one of these Loan Bills, and I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has been misinformed. The invariable practice has been for the Secretary to the India Office to give reasons for introducing the Loan Bill, and the case of 1885 was the solitary exception. Then the Bill was not wanted to meet ordinary expenditure, but to promote railways, which were much wanted, and had been recommended by a Select Committee in a Report which was already before the House when the Bill was introduced. Not long ago the hon. Gentleman who represents the India Office in this House made the usual statement about Indian Finances, and the Finance Minister not long before that also made a statement about Indian Finance, but in neither statement was there any indication that this application for £10,000,000 would be made. It was therefore reasonable to ask that the House should be put in possession of the objects of this proposed loan, and of the reasons which justify it.
    Report deferred till Monday next.

    PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
    Twenty-fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (DENBIGHSHIRE).
    Return [presented 29th November] to be printed. [No. 453.]
    WEST AFRICA (LAGOS).
    Copy presented, of Despatch from Sir Gilbert T. Carter, K.C.M.G., furnishing a General Report of the Lagos Interior Expedition, 1893; with Reply from the Secretary of State [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    UNEMPLOYED.
    Copy ordered, "of Circular Letter addressed by the Local Government Board on the 30th day of September,] 893, to Sanitary Authorities in England and Wales, with reference to means which may be adopted for providing, in times of exceptional distress, employment for the unemployed."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 454.]

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Marjoribanks.)

    BOARDS OF CONCILIATION.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Government to give facilities for the passing of the Boards of Conciliation Bill. This Bill had been brought in on account of the London Conciliation Board, which represented both employers and workmen in connection with all the great London Trades Unions, and the subject was one of great importance. He did not think the Bill would take long to be discussed—certainly not a whole evening. There was nothing really contentious in the Bill, and those whom he had the honour of representing, and on whose behalf the Bill was brought in, were extremely anxious it should be passed. They knew how much the commerce of the country had suffered in these days, and the London Conciliation Board were of opinion that such a Bill would do very much to prevent disputes in the future. The Government had the whole time of the House at their dis-
    210
    posal, and had had for the whole of this year, and surely it was not an unreasonable thing to ask that they should give facilities on one particular evening to consider a Bill which was so generally supported as this, and which it was believed would do much to diminish disputes and encourage the trade and commerce of the country. He did appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to grant some facilities for a measure of such importance.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend has appealed to the Government as having at their disposal the time of the House. They have only got the disposal of the time of the House under very strictly-defined conditions—namely, that it shall be devoted to particular measures, and those measures were settled before we adjourned in September. Nobody is more anxious than the Government to proceed with Bills for Conciliation Boards or for arbitration. We struggled to get in more Bills, but it was refused on the other side of the House to allow this Bill to go on with the non-contentious measures in spite of our solicitations. We made a proposal which we thought a reasonable one, that this and other Bills should be allowed to go to a Select Committee in order that the measure might become a non-contentious measure. In that petition we made we were not successful. They declined to allow us to treat this as a non contentious measure, and we unfortunately are bound by what we arranged at that time. We have no power to dispose of other Bills. These are not Bills of the Government, and even Bills which are Government Bills which do not come within the limitation then laid down we cannot take. I have, therefore, no power to give my right hon. Friend facilities for this or other Bills.
    SIR A. ROLLITshould have thought that from that side of the House even yet facilities might not only be tendered, but offered for the purpose of proceeding with this matter, which was one of vital importance. Everyone acknowledged his obligations to the Government, but especially to Lord Rosebery, for the settlement of the unfortunate dispute in the coal trade. The chief principle of that settlement was the principle of conciliation embodied

    211
    in it, and after that experience, and, seeing how soon the strike terminated when this method of conciliation was resorted to, he hoped that on both sides of the House there would be a disposition to give facilities for the passing of this Bill. The necessity for doing this was made more urgent by the proposal to solve the coal problem by a Trust, which might lead to the most serious social consequences, and renew the necessity, in the interest of the consumer, for the early legislation against monopolies, and against engrossing the prime necessities of life.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The point, again, turns upon what are contentious measures, and that is a difficult question with a measure of this kind. The House generally might be disposed to entertain a measure of this kind, and to see whether any means can be found by which the solution of these great labour problems might be furthered. But one point is certainly clear, and that is that a measure of this kind could not possibly be taken after 12 o'clock at night. The measure is an important one; it need not necessarily be a contentious one. It may be a measure in regard to which we might be able to arrive at a common understanding, but it could not be taken after 12 o'clock at night, when it is impossible any discussion could take place. That would be unfair to the Labour Party and to the employers, and it would be unfair to that great body which also is interested in the question —namely, the consumers, who stand outside both the employers and the Labour Party. If the Government should be able to say they will find a reasonable time to deal with the question of this magnitude, not at 12 o'clock at night, but in the hours which the importance of the subject would justify and require it to be treated, then I think it possible we might arrive at a compromise upon the matter. If the Government would consider the question from the point of view—namely, whether it could not be taken as big measures are always taken, at reasonable hours, with every facility of discussion—I certainly would endeavour to use my influence on this side of the House to see if the Government would suspend such other business as is not so urgent as a measure of this kind, if we
    212
    could not, by unanimous agreement of the House, deal with this matter. It is not a matter that can be dealt with simply after 12 o'clock; but if the Government would see fit to give proper time for discussion—
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Drop the Parish Councils Bill.
    MR. GOSCHEN: No, I do not say that, but if the Government say we will arrest the progress on the Parish Councils Bill for a few days in order to deal with a matter in which the country at the moment takes an infinitely deeper interest than they do in the Parish Councils Bill—in that case I think we should be able to deal with this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "drop the Parish Councils Bill." That would not, according to their own views, be necessary, as they say they will sit until the Parish Councils Bill has been passed. But I should have thought they would have seen it would have been in accordance with the general feeling of the country, if questions of urgency are to be considered, that it is more urgent to see whether means can be found to settle labour disputes, and that we should save a few days with regard to the Parish Councils Bill. I entirely object to any view of the Government that would put on any portion of the House any responsibility for shelving questions of this kind, but I say if it is to be dealt with it must be, as its importance deserves, at a time when it is possible for all the great interests concerned to take a proper part in the discussion.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that if this was really a non-contentious measure upon which they were all agreed, why not sit after 12 o'clock in order to pass it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that, owing to an agreement made with the Party opposite, it was impossible to take it otherwise, and as far as he (Mr. Morton), and he believed the Radical Party, were concerned, they were quite willing to sit after 12 o'clock and all night if necessary, or several nights, in order to carry this or some useful measure through.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY BILL.

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords. I wish to present two important Petitions: one signed by nearly 70 Shipowners of the Port of London, and the other by over 100 Shipowners of the Port of Liverpool, against so much of the Employers' Liability Bill as imposes fresh liabilities on shipowners in either of those Home Ports, and calling attention to the finding of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1886, which reported against such Acts. I move that those two Petitions be printed and circulated with the Votes.
  Moved—
  "That the Petitions presented this day from Shipowners of Liverpool and London, praying for amendment of or for further inquiry into the Bill before a Select Committee, be printed." —(The Viscount Cross.)
  Motion agreed to.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I wish to present a Petition from the workpeople employed by the Oldbury Alkali Company, Limited, stating that while they agree with the general provisions of the Bill they humbly beg that workpeople may be allowed to contract out of the Act, provided sanction be given by the Board of Trade or some other Government Department.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 281.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, the Bill of which I rise to move the Second Reading relates to a question which, as most of your Lordships are aware, has long been under discussion, and which has led to considerable litigation and many complaints by those, or a proportion of those, whose interests are affected by the legislation
  54
  regarding it. As your Lordships know, under the Common Law of this country an employer is liable for any injury that may accrue to a third person on account of the negligence of any one in his employ. For instance, if my coachman were carelessly to drive over and injure any person in the street I should under the law be liable for his negligence, and be subject to an action on the part of the person so injured. But there has grown up a different system with respect to the case of workmen as regards any injury they may suffer in consequence of the act of persons in the employment of the same master. Originally, I think I am right in saying, the law applicable to cases of that kind was the Common Law of the laud, to which I have just alluded. Years ago, when manufactures were carried on on a small scale and when the actual head of the establishment was in more direct personal communication with all his workmen than is possible under our existing industrial system, there was no difficulty in applying the law which rendered the master liable for any negligence of his own. But a great change has since taken place in the methods of our industry. Manufactures are carried on in large establishments or by great companies employing vast numbers of people, and it is, of course, impossible that the heads of those establishments can now be in the same close intercourse with the individual workman, and it was supposed, before certain decisions of the Courts, to which I shall allude in a moment, that under those circumstances the same rule might be applied to the employer of labour in the case of his workmen, as is applied in the case of a third person, and that the master would be liable for any injury from the negligence of others in his employ. But some time back—as far back as 1837 in England, but in Scotland, I believe, not earlier than 1868 —the Courts of Law laid down a different principle: that where persons were employed under the same master the master could not be held liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of those in his employ to others also in his employ. That is the doctrine of common employment. From the time when it was first established by the decision of the Courts, it, naturally enough, was regarded with great disfavour by the work-

  55
  men, and not only by them, but, if I am not mistaken, by a considerable number of employers of labour also, who held it to be an unjustifiable doctrine. Having been thus established by the Courts, it was from that time down to the year 1880 the law of the land, although complaints have been constantly made against it, and loud objections raised to it, since that time, until, by the extension of the franchise, the working classes, in towns more especially, were able to make their voices heard more potently with regard to any evil from which they might consider they were suffering. I believe it has been held that this doctrine was founded to some extent upon the idea that there is something in the nature of an implied contract that a workman on entering into any employment engages to take the ordinary risks connected with that employment. That, I confess, seems to me to be a doctrine of the most artificial description. There is no such contract, and, to my mind, it seems even more imaginary than the famous contral social of .Rousseau. Under this doctrine the workman is placed in a less advantageous position in regard to compensation for injuries than the stranger—to the stranger the manufacturer, the Railway Company, the private employer, or individual, are all liable to be called upon to make compensation for injury. The workman is not so entitled when an injury to him arises, as I have said, from the negligence of anyone in common employment with himself. With all respect for the great legal luminaries who originally laid down this doctrine, it strikes me, and always has struck me, that in many cases a workman has a stronger claim upon his employer than an outsider. They are engaged in a common industry, and it seems to me that the natural doctrine would point to there being a greater liability to compensate for injury done in that case than in that of a person altogether outside and unconnected with the employer of labour, or with those in whose works the injury is inflicted. Under these circumstances, I think it can hardly be wondered at that an increasing cry has arisen of late years for an alteration in this rule of law. That cry became so strong that in the year 1880 the Government of the day dealt with the question. It is very possible that the Act of 1880
  56
  went as far in altering this rule of law as public opinion was prepared to go then. I was not in Parliament or in England at that time, and I cannot speak of the state of things with which the Act of 1880 dealt; but, at all events, the experience of the 13 years which have elapsed has shown that the legislation of 1880, though a step in the right direction and well intended, has not dealt satisfactorily and fully with the whole question. The Act of 1880 left, to a great extent, the doctrine of common employment standing, but it made certain changes in it rendering the employer liable to his workman in certain cases. One case was when personal injury was caused to a workman by reason of any defect in the works, machinery, or plant connected with or used in the business of the employer. Another case was when injury was caused to a workman by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who had any superintendence entrusted to him whilst in the exercise of such superintendence. There are three other conditions besides these, but I need not trouble your Lordships with them. It will, therefore, be seen that it was admitted in 1880 by Parliament that some alteration of the law was necessary, and that two main grounds for abolishing the principle of common employment were laid down. But the experience of the 13 years which have elapsed since that time has shown, as might have been expected, that those special exemptions do not really meet the case. They leave the doctrine of common employment standing to a great extent, and they have been found in practice to give rise to considerable litigation in regard to the exact meaning and purpose of the special conditions to which I have referred. As soon as experience had been gained of the working of the Act, complaints began to arise, as your Lordships are probably aware, of the inefficient character of its provisions in dealing with the evil which was the subject of it, and attempts have been made from that time to remedy that inefficiency. Bills have been introduced into the other House, some by private Members and some by the Government of the day, for the purpose of remedying some of the defects which have been found to exist in the Act of 1880. Now, my Lords, I venture

  57
  to think that, if it is desired to place this question upon a satisfactory footing and to bring it to a final settlement, that cannot be effected so long as the doctrine of common employment is allowed in any degree to remain—I cannot say is allowed to remain upon the Statute Book, because it has not been created by Statute; it has been created, as I have said, by the decisions of the Courts of Law. It draws a distinction between workmen and strangers which it seems to me very difficult to defend, and there can be no doubt, I think, that the workmen themselves will never be content or satisfied while that distinction is allowed to exist, and while this doctrine continues to be enforced. The object of this Bill, therefore, is to get rid once and for ever of the doctrine of common employment. It is clearly laid down in the first clause of the Bill that in future the workman shall stand, with regard to the matter of compensation for injury, exactly on the same footing as a third person stands at the present time. I do not know that it is necessary I should detain your Lordships at this stage of the measure with any lengthened argument upon the advisability of putting an end to the doctrine of common employment, because I think upon that question very considerable agreement now exists. Attempts, as I have said, were made by the late Government to deal with the question. They did not go the length of abolishing the doctrine of common employment altogether, but they proceeded to place some still greater restrictions upon it than were placed by the Act of 1880. The second clause of this Bill was not in the Bill as it originally stood, but was introduced in the House of Commons. It deals with employments which are injurious to health; and though some persons doubt whether it was necessary and whether the Common Law does not provide for the case, even if that be so, it seems only reasonable that such a clause should be embodied in any settlement which proposes to deal with the whole of this question. Clause 3 deals with the question as regards sub-contractors. Your Lordships are aware that in a considerable number of trades it is the habit of the principal contractor to sub-let a portion of the work—often small portions of the work—to persons who carry them out with
  58
  a small number of men. That practice, I believe, exists in the building trade; it exists very largely in dock work, where the gangers from day to day engage small bodies of men in loading and unloading ships, and it exists in some parts of the country, especially, I think, in Lancashire, in mining operations under persons who go by the name of "butty-men." These sub-contractors are very often persons of very small means, against whom it would be useless to take legal proceedings to recover compensation, because they have not the means to pay under any order which the Court might make, and consequently the clause provides, most justly and necessarily I think, that the workman shall be entitled to bring his action against the principal contractor, and not against the small sub-contractor, who might be simply, financially speaking, a man of straw. At the same time, the Bill secures to the head contractor his remedy against the sub-contractor if he is able to put it in force. These three clauses, therefore, deal with the question of common employment, and they deal with it, I admit, drastically by placing the workman in the same position as any other person in the country with regard to the compensation for injury. I believe the time has come for the change proposed, and I believe that public opinion is fully prepared for it. Your Lordships are aware how ardently it has been desired by the working people of this country for many years, and I hope, therefore, upon that point there will be no difference of opinion in this House. I come now to the fourth clause of the Bill, which provides that no person shall be allowed to contract himself out of the Act. That is a principle which has been admitted by Parliament in numerous cases of late years. In the Merchant Shipping Acts there were many such provisions. In the Tithe Act of 1891, brought in by the late Government, there was a provision against contracting out, and I might produce a large number of other instances which are sufficient, I think, to render it unnecessary at this stage of the Bill to argue the general question. I have no doubt there are some of your Lordships—I do not see my noble Friend Lord Wemyss; but if he were here he

  59
  would, no doubt, be one of them— who object altogether to legislation of that description, and who refuse to prohibit people from contracting themselves out of an Act of Parliament; but the precedents I have mentioned give a sufficient answer, as showing the general feeling in these days; and upon this question of principle I can at least appeal to noble Lords opposite who formed part of the late Government, because the clause in the Act of 1891 to which I alluded provided against contracting out of the Act. That was, undoubtedly, a limited provision, while this is a general and complete provision. I do not wish to press that limited provision in the smallest degree beyond what it will bear, but it is at least a proof that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government this was a question upon which to some degree at least they were bound to go beyond the Act of 1880 which did not touch contracting out at all, and, with certain exceptions, to prevent it. Upon that point, since the passing of that Act, great complaints and objections have been made by most of the working classes themselves who are so largely interested in this question. I do not want to urge the point of the pressure which may be put upon working men to contract themselves out of the Act, but your Lordships can easily understand that there may be such pressure, which it is difficult to resist; and it is necessary to protect men in such cases by rendering contracts of that kind void in law. We must remember that this Bill is not brought in solely in the interests of any class. It is brought forward in what the Government believe to be the general interest, for the public safety, and for the protection of life and limb; and that is surely a ground why Parliament should say that it will not allow persons under pressure, or recklessly or improvidently, to deprive themselves, by contracting out of it, of the ad vantages which the Act of Parliament is intended to confer. I have already shown your Lordships that there is a great consensus of opinion in favour of some restriction being placed upon the free power of making valid contracts outside and beyond the provisions of the law in this respect. And this brings me, my Lords, to touch upon a question of great importance, a question which has occupied a large por-
  60
  tion of time in the other House of Parliament relating to what are called insurance funds. It was one of the objects of, the Bill of 1891 to allow contracting out in cases where funds of that description existed. It will not be difficult, I think, to show hereafter that the system which it was proposed to establish by that Bill was one which would have been extremely unworkable, which would have led to endless disputes and litigation, and which in the end it would not have been found possible to maintain. I want to clear away a misapprehension which appears to exist in the minds of many persons, and which, if the reports in the newspapers this morning are correct, appears to exist to a very serious extent in the mind of my noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury. My noble Friend is reported to have said that this Bill would ruthlessly crush out these Societies. Her Majesty's Government have not the least desire to crush out such Societies, ruthlessly or otherwise, and they believe that they will be maintained, and maintained in spite of the provisions of this Bill. It is said that the Societies will be crushed out, because unless the men are allowed to contract themselves out of the Act and to rely solely upon those funds, the funds will fall to the ground. The great cases—I will not say the exclusive cases—in which these funds exist are in connection with the Railway Companies, and especially the London and North Western Railway Company. That company have an insurance fund to which the company have contributed very largely, and they have obliged the men who belong to the fund to contract themselves out of the Act of 1880. I am sorry to go even further than that, and to say that I am informed that they require all men in their employment, whether they belong to the fund or not, to contract themselves out of the Act. I think that is a mistake. Another great Railway Company, the London and Brighton, also have a fund of this kind, but all the men in the service of that company are not required to contract themselves out of the Act, whether they belong to the fund or not. But, my Lords, this is only one side of the question. Let us look at the other. There are two other railways, the Midland and the Great Eastern, which have similar funds. The Midland's goes rather beyond

  61
  a mere accident fund, and provides, I believe, for sick cases and for superannuation. But they both have funds of this kind, and they do not require their men to contract themselves out of the existing Act. And if you want to see what the men of the Great Eastern Railway think on this subject, you have only to look at the report which appeared in the newspapers a day or two ago of a meeting of the men which was addressed by Mr. M'Laren, the Member for Crewe, in support of the Amendment which he moved in the House of Commons. What was the result? A Motion was made in accordance with Mr. M'Laren's view, and an Amendment was moved supporting the Bill. The Amendment was carried by an overwhelming majority, so that I think we may conclude that the men of the Great Eastern Railway, although they profit largely by the fund, see no objection to the provision against contracting out. Therefore, my Lords, you have two great railways in connection with which industrial insurance funds exist, without the obligation to contract out, and I do not see how it can be maintained that the provisions of this Act, which is simply in accordance with the practice of these railways, will "ruthlessly destroy" insurance funds of this kind.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Marquess has quoted me, I may say that I went on the statement of a Director of the London and North Western, made in the House of Commons, to the effect that contracting out was essential to the funds, which undoubtedly would cease if the Bill passed in its present form.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: That, of course, is a matter of conjecture, which may fitly be discussed in Committee. I think it will, then, be shown that so many benefits are involved in the continued existence of these funds that Director's will think better of it before coming to any determination to withdraw their contributions. Be that as it may, it does not necessarily follow that because that is the view of one Director or of all the Directors of the London and North Western Railway that they will turn out to be right, and that therefore these funds will be ruthlessly destroyed. I can
  62
  hardly see, in the face of the example of the Great Eastern and Midland, any ground for believing that that will be the case. If it is admitted, as I presume it is by the foes of the Bill, that contracting out must be prohibited, in the sense of being rendered void at law, in a great many cases, I want to know whether you are going to set up a sort of privilegium in particular cases for particular employers? I suppose you are not going to put into the Schedule the cases of particular railways or employers by name. You will have to make a definition. You will have to refer the matter to some authority to decide in each particular case whether the definition applies to the case or not. Noble Lords opposite in their Bill of 1891 proposed to do that, to a great extent, by reference to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the President of the Board of Trade. I will not press that point now, but I think it would not take long to show that would practically turn out to be a very unworkable system. At all events, I am sure that if Parliament enacts anything of this kind this Bill will fail to effect a final settlement of the question. It has been used as an argument against the Bill, as I understand, that it is the Bill of the Trade Unions. My Lords, if the Bill is a bad Bill, the fact that it is supported by the Trade Unions or by any other body of people will not make it a good Bill. That I entirely admit; but I am bound to say, considering that the Trade Unions represent very largely the feeling of those who will be affected by the Bill, that, so far from that being an argument against the Bill, it is one distinctly in favour of the measure. Unless you carry with you the hearty support of the great bulk of the working classes in legislation affecting their interests, your efforts will fail of success. Coming to the sixth clause, I may just say that its object is to make this Act more easy, simple, and effective in its working than the Act of 1880. There are only one or two more points in the Bill on which I need dwell at the present moment. The Bill, as your Lordships know, under Clause 8, is made to apply to workmen in the employment of the Crown, but not, of course, the Military and Naval Services. There is no reason and no justice

  63
  why men employed, for example, in the Arsenal at Woolwich should be placed in a different position from that of any other workman in respect of compensation for injuries occurring in the course of their employment. The definition of "workman" is made wider than in the existing Act, and includes seamen, domestic servants, and
  "every person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer in the United Kingdom."
  The noble Viscount opposite has presented Petitions from certain persons in London and Liverpool against the Act being made applicable to seamen, and he moved that the House agree that those Petitions be printed. I think, therefore, it will be convenient to your Lordships if I defer any observations on this branch of the subject till those Petitions are before us, only observing that I cannot at present see why seamen should be excluded. Such, then, is the Bill which I have the honour to present to your Lordships' House. Its three main characteristics are these: In the first place, it abolishes altogether the doctrine of common employment; in the second place, it prevents altogether contracting out of the Act; and, in the third place, it greatly simplifies and cheapens the process of enforcing the law. I think, my Lords, these are important and desirable objects, and I submit that the Bill which we are now offering to your Lordships on behalf of the Government affords the prospect of a fair and satisfactory settlement of a long-controverted question. It will bring to an end an artificial doctrine of law justly complained of by the working classes, and will put them, in the matter of compensation for accidents, on the same footing as the rest of the community, and it will remove a distinction unknown to the Common Law, and supported as far as I can perceive by no substantial justification. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid, that there could be no doubt that this measure, if passed in anything approaching its present form, would effect very important changes for good or evil in the industrial
  64
  life of this country, especially with reference to coal mines. As a colliery owner, employing some 3,000 men, he hoped that their Lordships would allow him to make a few remarks with regard to the changes that this Bill would make in the position of coal-miners. The two great features of the Bill were the proposals which it embodied to abolish the doctrine of common employment and to prohibit workmen from contracting themselves out of the provisions of the measure. With regard to the proposal to abolish the doctrine of common employment, he should not trouble their Lordships with many observations. The doctrine of common employment had been a vexed question for many years; and although doubtless much might be said in its favour, still it was not a. popular doctrine, at all events with miners, who, not unnaturally, wished to be placed on the same footing as regarded compensation for accidents with those who were engaged in other forms of labour. Whether the miners were right or not in entertaining that wish was an academical question which he did not desire to enter upon at that moment, but it was certain that that doctrine had been not infrequently pressed in past years in a most elastic fashion as a defence on the part of employers. It was, therefore, not surprising that the Government had decided to effect a change in the law in this respect and would increase to a considerable extent the liability of employers. That additional liability, however, would no doubt be largely covered by insurance, the cost of which would eventually be embodied in the price of the article produced. The result, therefore, would be that the doctrine of common employment with its possible hardships would be swept away at the cost of a small tax on the public as consumers. In his opinion, that was a most excellent and cheap method of getting rid of what was undoubtedly a grievance under which the men had laboured, and it was one to which neither the employers nor the employed would object in the least degree. But with regard to the second change proposed by the Bill—that of prohibiting the men from contracting themselves out of the provisions of the measure—there was a good deal more to be said, because its effects upon the relations between

  65
  employers and employed would be far more important. If this Bill passed in its present shape Parliament would greatly weaken, if not entirely destroy, the system of private insurance which now existed, and which worked to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Under that system a fund was created by the joint contributions of the employers and employed, and out of it compensation was made to every workman who might be injured, no matter how his injury was caused. These private Insurance Societies had been in a number of instances established for many year?, and they had the effect of strengthening mutual interest and good feeling between employers and employed. Considerable light had been thrown of late upon the working of these Societies, as far as they concerned the railway men, by the recent discussions on this Bill that had taken place in the House of Commons and in the Public Press, the result being that other similar systems had been rather forced into the background, for these private funds existed in many of the industries of this country. Sir W. Armstrong and Company, and several large firms in Birmingham and in South Staffordshire, bad established similar private Insurance Societies, who had paid large sums to their members as compensation for injuries which they had received in the course of their employment. He did not speak of these private Insurance Societies without having some knowledge of their working. In his own collieries such Societies had been in operation for the last 50 years, which showed that they had not failed in their object, while they had given rise to the most friendly relations between himself and those whom he employed. But if this Bill passed in its present shape those private Insurance Societies would be either greatly weakened or entirely destroyed, because there could be no doubt that if workmen were prohibited from contracting themselves out of the provisions of the measure the employers would withdraw their contributions from the joint funds. The noble Marquess who had moved the Second Reading of the Bill did not appear to think that such would be the result of the proposed change, and seemed to imagine that there was no reason to apprehend that these private arrangements would not
  66
  continue to exist. He did not think, however, that there were many Members of that House—and he was sure that there were not many people in the country—who would hold that view, because it was contrary to common sense to suppose that employers would continue to make contributions to these funds when all the advantages which they deprived from their existence had been swept away by the operation of this Bill. It was impossible to suppose that employers would deliberately stand up to be shot at from both sides. It was perfectly obvious, if the Bill passed in its present form, employers would withdraw their contributions to those funds and would hand them over to some large Insurance Office, who would relieve them of all liability in the matter. It was a mistake to suppose that by taking that course the employers would incur any increased expenditure; on the contrary, they would save money by the change. He calculated that by making the change he should pay some £325 per annum less than he now paid to his colliery funds, and he did not doubt that other employers would be able to make as good, if not a more advantageous, arrangement. The consequences to the men, however, would be of a far more serious character, and it was in their interests that he asked Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their determination with regard to this question. If this measure were passed: as it now stood the men would find themselves involved in litigation with wealthy companies, who would be bound, in the interest of their shareholders, to contest every case in which there was the least shadow of doubt, while, in the second place, they would only be entitled to compensation in cases of accidents caused by negligence. It was difficult to exaggerate the advantages which the men derived under the present system, under which they obtained compensation in all cases of accident, however caused. Hundreds of accidents were constantly occurring in coal mines owing to causes that could not be clearly ascertained, and, indeed, it was only some 6 or 7 per cent of such accidents that were due to negligence, which could be traced to the fault of any particular person—falling of roofs, boring accidents, and other mishaps were constantly occurring, which often incapacitated miners for weeks from fol-

  67
  lowing their employment. These cases were totally unprovided for by the Bill; and, therefore, the great majority of injured workmen would be forced to depend entirely on their own small resources in cases of permanent or temporary disablement. There was a case of which he had personal knowledge, and which would illustrate the operation of the Bill. An Inspector at Birmingham, who had been in the employment of the London and North Western Railway Company for 30 years, while crossing the line at New Street to answer a call from the stationmaster, was knocked down by an engine and had both his legs cut off. When he recovered, the company found him a berth at 25s. a week for the rest of his life, as long as he behaved himself. Under this Bill he would have got nothing at all. The first defence to any claim for compensation would have been contributory negligence. It was not, therefore, surprising that the action of the House of Lords on this measure should be watched with the greatest interest by numbers of working men whose interests were involved. The men had taken every means in their power of expressing their views on the question. A deputation representing 100,000 men waited on the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition to protest against the Bill; and their Lordships were aware of the result of the ballot among the London and North Western men. He had similar evidence on a smaller scale. Among the 3,000 men in his employment he had caused a secret ballot to be taken a fortnight ago. The result was that 90 per cent. voted in favour of the continuance of the present system, 8 per cent. voted in favour of the Government proposal, and 2 per cent. were neutral. He felt convinced their Lordships would regard these expressions of opinion on the part of workmen as genuine evidence that in cases where these voluntary insurance funds existed the men were strongly in favour of continuing them, and deprecated the attempt which had been made to destroy them. The position of the Government in this matter was most anomalous. They professed to sympathise with democratic ideas, and to wish to benefit the working classes of this country. They proved that desire by proposing to forcibly deprive a large section
  68
  of the working men of advantage greatly appreciated and valued by them. They professed to respect the right of individual liberty and judgment. They illustrated that respect by curtailing the liberty of a large number of intelligent men, and by refusing them permission to decide how their own interests could be best served. They professed to believe in the vote by ballot as the only sure method of testing the popular will. They showed that belief by ignoring the almost unanimous ballot taken among many thousands of workmen, and by refusing to accept it as genuine evidence. Under such circumstances, he hoped the House would subject the measure to a most severe scrutiny, and would refuse to endorse that part of the Bill which involved such great hardship and so great an injustice.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, as their Lordships were about to give this Bill a unanimous Second Reading, it might safely be assumed that they approved of its principle, and the question naturally arose, what was the principle of the Bill? The noble Marquess had laboured very much the question of what he called the doctrine of common employment, and he said that the total abolition of that doctrine was the main object of the Bill. That, he apprehended, was a part of the Bill to which no Member of that House, on either side, would object. But the noble Marquess, in his account of the doctrine of common employment, did scant justice, as, indeed, it was very natural he should do, because, as he told their Lordships, he was not in England at the time, to the Act of 1880. The truth was that that Act destroyed virtually the whole doctrine of common employment, and what he wanted to direct the attention of the House specially to was the amount of change which this Bill would really make in the law as it stood under the Act of 1880. He believed that the Bill would do very little indeed for the working classes more than had been done by that Act, and would certainly do them very great damage unless Clause 4 was materially modified. In three directions the Bill enlarged the scope of the present law. In the first place, it brought in the workmen in the Government Factories. Well, that was a matter of course. He did not imagine that any human being would urge an

  69
  argument in favour of the exclusion of workmen employed under the Government from the general law of the land affecting other employers. Next, it brought in domestic servants. That was a matter of very small importance indeed, for accidents to domestic servants due to the negligence of masters must be very small. Lastly, it brought in accidents to seamen. That was a much more important question. Petitions had already been presented from shipowners in London and Liverpool against the Bill, and he wished to give notice that in Committee he would present to the House and move to have printed a Petition from no less than 54 of the largest shipowners on the Clyde with regard to the incidence of this Bill on seamen. That, however, was a separate question. But with regard to the general effect of the Bill in enlarging the privileges of the employed, there was nothing beyond the inclusion of Government workmen, domestic servants, and seamen. Speaking of seamen, there was a curious clause in this Bill, which seemed to revive and re-establish the doctrine of common employment in another form. Clause 10 provided that the crew of a fishing vessel should not be included in the benefits of the Act where such members, though not part owners, were "joint adventurers with the owners." It was quite possible to argue that all wage-earners were part adventurers, and if it should come to wages being hereafter paid as a percentage on profits, then the wage-earners and workers would be joint adventurers with the masters, and if this principle were established the old doctrine of common employment would be re-established and recognised under the form of "common adventurers." Passing on to the method of enforcing compensation, he imagined the object of the Bill must be to secure better compensation for accidents arising from negligence, and also to induce owners and employers to exercise greater vigilance in preventing them. Both those ends were attained by the Act of 1880. That Act made owners liable for all accidents due to neglect through agents, direct or indirect, or to any act of carelessness on the part of their officers who had any authority or responsibility in acting for them. In all those cases they were liable. There were two other classes of accidents re-
  70
  maining. Those were, in the first place, accidents due to the individual carelessness of the men to whom the accidents happened. That class of cases was not provided for by the Bill at all. It did nothing whatever to secure compensation for accidents which happened owing to the negligence or carelessness of the individual men to whom the accidents happened—nothing whatever. Those, be believed, were at least 60 or 70 per cent. of all the accidents that happened; and as the Bill did nothing whatever in those cases, the benefit of it would be comparatively small, even if it passed entirely unaltered. Then another class of accidents was those which were due to the carelessness of comrades or fellow-workmen. What would happen in those cases? He did not deny for a moment that some of the most deplorable accidents were due to the carelessness of comrades and fellow-workmen. Take, for example, accidents in coal mines. There, in 99 cases out of 100, they were due to such carelessness. Compensation would not be secured unless negligence were proved. But how was that to be brought home to them? In almost all the cases the whole of the men were killed; and even when they were not, reference to the trials which took place would show that there was nobody capable of giving evidence as to how the accident occurred. Generally, it happened that some man had opened his lamp to light his pipe, and was blown to atoms with his unfortunate comrades. No compensation would be payable to anybody unless negligence could be proved—negligence of the master or the agent, direct or indirect; negligence of the comrades. Where no negligence could be proved, there was no compensation provided for by the Bill. It was impossible to listen to the speech of the noble Marquess without seeing that by the insurance funds referred to by Lord Dudley all those deficiencies in law were provided for. They provided for accidents in all cases without the least reference to the cause. Then why should those funds be prevented? The noble Marquess had said that the prohibition of contracting, out had become a common thing in Acts of Parliament, and that both Parties in Parliament had assented to it in certain cases. He did not deny

  71
  that for a moment, but each case must be decided by itself. If a contract was against public policy; if a contract was notoriously injurious to the men themselves—as, for instance, a contract for perpetual slavery, which was unknown to the law of England—Parliament had a right to prohibit that or any contracts which were against public policy; but could they say it was against public policy to have insurance funds when they knew that under the insurance system all accidents were provided for, whether due to carelessness or not? There was under that system no legislation, no painful inquiry, no antagonism between employer and employed, and the system worked with perfect smoothness between masters and men. The question was, whether this was a kind of contract which ought to be prohibited? That was the whole question. He had heard no argument from the noble Marquess in favour of prohibiting this particular kind of contract. On the contrary, he had said he fully admitted that these contracts were very right and very good. Then why prohibit or impede them? Then the noble Marquess said, "It is very true the men of the North Western Company are against the prohibition; but the men of the Great Eastern are for it." That was no argument against allowing freedom of contract. Let those men who did not wish to contract out come under the Bill. It was a question of individual freedom. A large deputation had waited upon him a few days ago, and he cross-questioned some of its members upon this subject, and more intelligent men he never had intercourse with. They spoke excellently well, and stated their case as well as any Member of their Lordships' House could have stated it. They seemed to be as intelligent upon their own subjects as any Member of that House, and perhaps a good deal more independent. They stated that a ballot of the London and North Western Railway men had been taken on the question, and that 75 per cent. of the men had voted in favour of this system of contracting out. Then why should the Government attempt to abolish it? It was a very curious thing that the noble Marquess did not say one word in favour of that prohibition. His question was, could they prove that in this case it was a wise and just prohibition to
  72
  make? Let them consider what the benefit was to the working classes of the system of mutual insurance. It avoided litigation; it promoted watchfulness and the prevention of accidents. He was told by one of the deputation from the Elswick Works of Messrs. Armstrong that about three-fourths of the whole funds were contributed by the men, and not only that, but the large majority of the managing body were themselves working men. One of the workmen, who he was told was also a constituent and great supporter of Mr. John Morley, told him that the effect of the system was that representatives of the men went round the machinery at stated intervals to see that it was all properly guarded and that all preventible means were taken to avoid accidents; and that if accidents did occur, they would be clearly owing to the negligence of the workmen themselves. In great works like Lord Armstrong's there must be accidents occurring which were not due to the carelessness of comrades or agents of any kind, but which were pure accidents happening to individual men. Under this Bill those men would get no advantage whatever, but they all got compensation under the system of mutual insurance. The present system, therefore, clearly encouraged watchfulness; it prevented antagonism, as his noble Friend Lord Dudley had said, between employer and employed, and it established, above all, a sense of common interest. In short, it had every advantage which a system of compensation for injury could possibly have, and was better than any system which could be established under the legal obligation of an Act of Parliament. Why did noble Lords dislike it? Why did they wish to prohibit it? Some of the deputation which waited upon him were quite outspoken upon the subject. They said many of them were members of the Trades Unions, but that many of the leaders of the Trades Unions objected to the contracting-out clause, because they wanted to get the men entirely into their own hands; but the workmen wished to be free, as individual men. He strongly urged upon the House that individual liberty ought to be upheld, and it was a monstrous proposition for any Minister of the Crown to lay down that to allow this individual liberty to the men was to

  73
  confer a privilege upon them—to give them a privilegium.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he did not apply that to the men, but to the companies which it was proposed should be released.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was the men themselves who made these agreements, and when a ballot was taken they voted 90 per cent. in favour of being allowed to make them. The freedom of Englishmen to act as they thought best in their own interests and for their own benefit was to be called in future a privilege, and Parliament was to judge for them. That was a monstrous doctrine to lay down. He could not help thinking that all these measures which set employers against employed would ultimately have most disastrous effects upon the working classes themselves. There was no doubt that they encouraged the idea which was continually urged in some quarters, 1hat the interests of capital and labour were antagonistic. That doctrine was simply idiotic, and ought not to be encouraged. Capital and labour were necessary to each other, and capital could not be employed freely where it was fettered by such Acts. In other respects, the effect of passing the Bill in its present shape would be most disastrous to the working classes of the country. It was quite clear that the great commercial depression and troubles which existed in all the great commercial centres of the world—in England, in America, and in Germany—were coincident with agitation, which unsettled the minds of men, which put forward the doctrine that capital was antagonistic to labour, and which destroyed confidence in the results of commercial enterprise. The old doctrine of political economists of the wages fund, that wages consisted of a certain sum of money, like so many guineas in an old woman's stocking, was now completely abandoned. It was knocked on the head chiefly, he believed, by his old friend Mr. Thornton, was finally killed by John Stuart Mill, and was now held by nobody. There was, nevertheless, a source from which all wages came. All wages must spring from commercial enterprise, and every Statute which tended to discourage commercial enterprise struck a direct blow at the working classes. Those who had
  74
  capital were unwilling to invest it in commercial enterprise when they did not know, from day to day, what was going to happen in the labour market, and in other directions. It was only last autumn that one of the greatest employers on the Clyde told him that was the feeling which operated on his mind. Every Bill which interfered with individual liberty and freedom, and set up the doctrine that capital was necessarily antagonistic to labour, had a directly dangerous influence on the wages fund of the working classes. His noble Friend opposite said that these funds would not be destroyed if Clause 4 were passed, but his noble Friend who had last spoken had shown that such a contention was incorrect. The deputation which waited upon him the other day represented 160,000 working men, who were against destroying the existing arrangements. What ground had his noble Friend for saying that these funds would not be destroyed? Lord Dudley had given most excellent reasons why it would be almost impossible for employers to continue them. He hoped, for the reasons which he had stated, that their Lordships would expunge Clause 4 when the time came for doing so in Committee. In the meantime, he gave his assent to the general principle of the Bill; and he and his friends went further, and said that they believed it would be far better to allow compensation to be given, by means of mutual arrangements between employers and employed, for compensation for all kinds of accidents without reference to the cause of them. He hoped, therefore, their assent to the Second Reading would not be misunderstood, because the desired Amendments could be brought forward in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYasked for the indulgence of their Lordships while he addressed them for a few moments as an employer of labour and a colliery owner in the County of Durham and a member of the Durham Coalowners' Association. He cordially concurred in the decision of the noble Marquess below him not to divide on the Second Reading. In the first place, he did not think that the Bill was worthy of being rejected by their Lordships. He regarded it himself, with certain alterations, as a Bill of a harmless character; but whether those alterations were made

  75
  or not, he was at a loss to see how the Bill could benefit any human being. The country had had experience of a Bill of the same character as this in the Act of 1880, which, according to the noble Marquess opposite, had not proved itself in any way a success. The measure that was submitted that day added, to his mind, to the evils of the Act of 1880. He would briefly enumerate the provisions of this new Bill. In the first place, it proposed the total abolition of the doctrine of common employment by subjecting employers to the same liability to their workmen as they were under to strangers for injuries caused by the workmen of the employer; secondly, it made employers liable for injuries resulting from an absence of reasonable sanitary precautions, as if that were legal negligence; thirdly, it prohibited employers and workmen from contracting out of the Act; and, lastly, it placed the liability of employers to workmen on the same footing as to strangers—first, by removing any limit to the amount of compensation recoverable; and, second, by abandoning the special provisions of the old Act as to procedure, except that the County Courts were given jurisdiction in all cases where the amount claimed did not exceed £300; whereas, under the ordinary law affecting strangers, the limit of the County Court jurisdiction was £50. On that point he proposed to move an Amendment at the proper time. But what he wanted to bring under their Lordships' attention was the effect of the present Bill on the mining population of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham. Previous to the Act of 1880 they enjoyed considerable benefits. He would not enumerate them all, but he would briefly state that the chief benefits they enjoyed were the partial maintenance of a medical man at each colliery, and the provision until otherwise required of free house accommodation, and coals for the widows of men killed from whatever cause while following their employment. In addition, some owners maintained, or aided in maintaining, relief funds at their own collieries. There also was what was known as "smart money," a weekly sum paid by the employers to any person injured below ground in such a way as to disable him from following his employment. The amount paid was 2s. 6d. a week to a boy and 5s. a week
  76
  to a man for a period not exceeding six months. Then there was also a Miners' Provident Society, to which many employers voluntarily contributed a percentage of 20 per cent. of the workmen's contributions. He would now bring to their Lordships' notice the action taken by the owners in consequence of the passing of the Act of 1880. After the passing of that Act, but previous to its becoming law, a meeting of the Coalowners' Association was held, at which Returns from members of the Association were received. Those Returns showed that during the year ending September 30, 1880, money amounting to £6,119 10s. 4d. was paid by employers to workmen as smart money, and the employers also contributed £4,598 1s. 9d. to the miners' permanent relief fund. At the same meeting, the coalowners of the two counties addressed a letter to the Miners' Association. The gist of that letter was that the coalowners proposed that their previous privileges, such as their accommodation houses and smart money, should remain undisturbed, but that the owners' percentage contribution to the miners' relief fund which covered all classes of accident and also old age should be increased. The Miners' Association refused this proposal. He also wished to call attention to the following paragraph in that letter:—
  "You are no doubt aware of the numerous donations and other privileges which for many years past have been voluntarily given by the colliery owners for the benefit of those workmen who have received injury in their employ, or, in case of death, of their representatives, the value of which amounts to £30,000 per annum, of which £6,000 per annum is represented by smart money."
  The payment of smart money did not end when the Bill of 1880 became law, for in the year 1891 no less than £9,000 was paid as smart money in those districts to men who were disabled. The offer of the coalowners was put forward from no sordid or grasping motive, but simply, among other things, to avoid litigation. If this measure passed, litigation would be found to be a very heavy item in the pitman's account. That offer was also put forward for the purpose of promoting harmonious and cordial feelings between employers and employed. In 1891, after the offer had been rejected, an Owners' Association was formed for each county under the Companies Acts on the lines

  77
  of Mutual Insurance Associations formed by the coalowners. That that policy was successful was shown by the fact that the amount of compensation paid during the 11 years from 1880 to 1891 was only £2,632 6s. 7d., while no less than £967 0s. 11d. was paid in legal expenses. On the other hand, the payments made voluntarily by employers to the miners' permanent relief fund during the same period amounted to no less than £49,264. He thought their Lordships would allow that the Employers' Liability Act had not been beneficial to those whom it was intended to benefit. If he wanted corroboration of that he found it in the evidence given by Mr. Steele, the Secretary of the Miners' Relief Fund, before the Labour Commission on August 5, 1891. Mr. Steele said that the total amount of owners' percentages paid up to 1881 was equal to 12½ per cent. on the whole contributions of the members; that since 1880 there had been a general falling-off in the owners' subscriptions, and in 1890 they were only 5·7 per cent. Mr. Steele also said—
  "Undoubtedly the Employers' Liability Act has resulted in the decrease of the owners' percentage";
  and he also showed that if the owners had maintained their rate of contribution prevailing up to December, 1880—that was before the passing of the Bill— the position of the Society would have been better by nearly £40,000. He did not think he exaggerated when he said that, judging by the benefits conferred on the miners of Durham by the Act of 1880, there was not much chance of their receiving much further benefit from the Bill now before the House. The Bill, in his opinion, increased the probability of litigation, because it increased the area of liability, and it involved the risk already proved of a diminution of the voluntary payments of employers, which exceeded any payments that could be obtained under the law. He would make one statement of a personal character. He had heard it stated that if the Bill as it at present existed became law the owners, in all probability, would withdraw their subscriptions to the insurance funds. Whether the Bill passed as it stood or not, unless some circumstances of an altogether unforeseen character arose, he would in no way depart from the policy
  78
  he had pursued in the past. But he wished to state that, while he had been putting before the House the line taken since the passing of the Act of 1880 by the coalowners of Durham, on this point he was in a position to pledge nobody but himself. He could, however, say that the coalowners would never be wanting in doing all that possibly could be done to secure the comfort of their men, and to minimise the danger that must necessarily appertain to those following so hazardous a calling. He had had some experience of mining, and he assured those in charge of the Bill that if they thought it was going to effect a millennium for the pitmen they were as ignorant of the elementary rudiments of mining as was that right hon. Gentleman of agriculture who entertained the idea that if Parish Councils were only created there would exist in the most desolate and barren parts of this Kingdom "waving fields of golden corn."
  LORD STALBRIDGEsaid, he would not have troubled their Lordships with any remarks on this occasion but for two or three observations of the noble Marquess in moving the Second Heading. He would not detain their Lordships at any length for two reasons: first, because, as Chairman of the London and North Western Railway Company, he was sorry to say he would have to be heard again when the Bill was in Committee; and, next, that this question of contracting out of the Bill had been fought out by the men themselves. Holding the position which he had the honour to hold as Chairman of that company, he would not be doing right, therefore, in saying anything on that matter, because it would be brought before their Lordships at a later stage by another Member of the House selected by the men themselves. He wished, however, to make a few remarks on the observations which fell from the noble Marquess in introducing the Bill. In the first place, he rather hinted that some coercion must have been used on the men. That suggestion had been disposed of in the other House and in the Press. In these days it was not likely that it was in the power of Directors to influence by coercion some 60,000 men voting in, secret ballot. Such a suggestion was an insult to the intelligence of the men.

  79
  He could only repeat what had been said before, that the action on the part of the men was earnest and spontaneous; it came from them alone, and it was they themselves who were desirous of maintaining this power of contracting out of the Act. He wished that his noble Friend opposite had received a deputation from the men, and had heard both sides of the question. He would then have seen the earnestness with which they argued their own cause, and the reasons they brought forward in support of it. But the Members of the Government, both in their Lordships' House and in the other House of Parliament, refused to hear the arguments of the men themselves. It was perfectly true that it was one of the conditions of service in the North Western Railway Company that the men should join the insurance fund. If there had been the slightest objection to that coercion, as they called it, would not the men have taken the earliest opportunity of showing it? They had, however, by majorities of 87 per cent. and 95 per cent. declared in favour of the present system, and that was the result of spontaneous action on the part of the men themselves. The noble Marquess bad urged as a reason why the contribution now made by the employers should not be withdrawn, that under the Bill that contribution would be regarded as part of the compensation awarded to the injured workman. But such a course would be most impolitic on the part of the employers, and that seemed to him to be one of the weakest and most curious arguments ever adduced. By placing a sum of £50 or £100 in the hands of a man who was permanently injured would they not open a field to the speculative attorney, of whom they had heard so much, who would say that if he were paid so much of that ready money he would obtain a very much larger sum for the man in a Court of Law? That would be a most foolish course for any Board of Directors to take, and one which they would inevitably repent very soon. The London and North Western Directors had passed a resolution stating that if the Act passed in its present form their contribution to the fund must inevitably cease. As a matter of fact, it ceased automatically. It was given for a definite object, and if the conditions were not adhered to
  80
  it lapsed. No Director would ask the shareholders to contribute to the fund as largely as before with the knowledge that no benefit would be got from it. He wished to know what possible harm would accrue to those who did not want the power of contracting out by granting it to those who did want it? and he trusted in Committee to adduce further reasons why the present system, including as it did the power of contracting out, should be retained.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, it was his duty on behalf of the Government in 1880 to move in that House the Employers' Liability Bill of that year, and upon that occasion he expressed his own inability to follow the grounds upon which the doctrine of common employment had been established. It, therefore, would not surprise their Lordships to hear that he, for one, was perfectly content that it should be abolished in the absolute manner in which that was done by the Bill, but he must warn all those interested in the question that to abolish the doctrine of common employment did not mean that everybody who was in anybody else's employment was to be compensated for all the accidents which might happen to him in that employment. In the first place, if it was his own fault, of course he was not to be compensated if he contributed in any manner to the accident. The law as it would be under this Bill was the same as at present—the workman was not in that case to be compensated. Lastly, he would only be compensated under this Bill in the way in which a stranger would be compensated. He did not suppose for a moment that every passenger on board a ship who was not in the employment of the company was entitled to be compensated for every accident by which he might be injured; he did not apprehend that everyone who visited a mine, a stranger not in the employment of the Mining Company, would, as a matter of necessity, be entitled to compensation because he might suffer from some accident or other which occurred while he happened to be down in the mine; and he did not apprehend that every visitor or guest in a private house would be compensated for every accident which might happen while he was there. Therefore, although the classes of persons who would

  81
  benefit by the Bill were enlarged, and although the doctrine of common employment was abolished, there would be an ample field still remaining for questioning whether, under particular circumstances, compensation was due or not. He thought it as well to say so much as that, lest the effect of the Bill should anywhere be exaggerated. No doubt within its proper limits it would operate justly in the cases where it operated at all. The only other matter which had been brought into discussion, and which arose on the present occasion only in this way —that it involved an important principle, though that was not the principle of the Bill with which they were concerned in the vote to be given on the Second Reading—the only other matter was that of the clause absolutely excluding all contracting out of the Act. He was surprised to see it stated that the noble Earl who so worthily led the Government in that House upon the occasion of speaking on this Bill in the country was reported to have said something in a general way, to the effect that a Bill was of no use if people were allowed to contract out of it, and instancing the Agricultural Improvements Act. There was no man in that House of whose judgment—when they had his real judgment—he thought more highly than his noble Friend; but if he did make that remark, and if he illustrated it by that case, he must for the moment have forgotten the difference between such a case as that which he referred to and the present. When a general rule of law had to be laid down which executed itself apart from litigation If the rule were a sound one it might be a very wise thing to take care that nobody should be at liberty to alter it or to depart from it. The Agricultural Improvements Bill was of that nature. It laid down certain rules founded upon justice which would be practically incorporated by law into every contract for tenancy of land, and which would, therefore, execute themselves just as much as the rights given in a lease. There was no obscurity about them—no uncertainty. Their application might, of course, like everything else in the world, in some possible cases become a matter of dispute, but it was not in their general nature necessary that they should be ascertained by litigation. But where
  82
  a remedy was given by an Act for damages to a person suffering a particular wrong, then, unless the parties met and agreed without an action, litigation was the whole thing; and to say that because a general rule of law should not be interfered with by private contracts therefore there shall be a rule of law that somebody who suffers an injury and cannot agree with the person whom he holds responsible for it as to the amount to be paid is not to be at liberty to protect himself in some better form if he can, seems to be at the least very remote from the analogy. The principle which should always be kept in. view in considering whether contracts should be allowed by way of exception from general legislation was, whether the nature of the case required the prohibition of the exercise of private judgment or not. He could understand that it might be thought unsafe to allow an unlimited power to contract out of such a remedy as this Bill gave, because of the possibility of the application of pressure or superior power on the part of the employer as against the employed; but what he could not understand was, upon what conceivable principle in dealing with a definite class of arrangements which gave to the employed as a class better and more advantageous remedies than those given by particular litigation—upon what conceivable principle that was to be prohibited he failed altogether to understand. Here their Lordships had presented to them a certain class of insurance contracts or Benefit Societies, and the question was whether any principle whatever required—he would go further and say justified—the prohibition of such contracts if their prohibition could be avoided consistently with the general intention. Some people said those insurance funds or Benefit Societies would not be prohibited; but those who subscribed enormous sums of money as employers must be judges for themselves as to that. To him it seemed the most reasonable thing in the world that they should stipulate for some advantage to themselves in return for that which they contributed. They might say—"We give £20,000—in some cases more than the contributions of the men—to an insurance fund; we shall have the benefit of the insurance fund as well as you, and we shall have that insur-

  83
  ance against litigation," and the men approved of that because it gave to them the immense advantage which this Bill would not give them; it covered all those classes of accidents which the Bill would not cover, and it relieved them from all those risks, liabilities, uncertainties, and costs of litigation in which the Bill would inevitably involve them. Was there any advantage in dealing with the matter in that way? They would see when the Bill reached the Committee stage; but if there was no advantage, he could not but look upon the Government policy of insisting upon this proviso as a determination to saddle this measure, proposed in the general interest of the employed, with a conditional clause depriving vast numbers of the employed of great benefits which they at present enjoyed, and for which this Bill would be no substitute whatever.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I do not think it necessary to defend the principle of the Bill in so far as it extends the Act of 1880 and puts an end to the doctrine of so-called common employment. One observation I will make, and it is this: The noble Duke who spoke earlier in the Debate said the Bill does very little, that the extension of the Act of 1880 is very trifling, and that it is a measure for which nobody has any reason to be thankful. That is not the opinion of the mass of the working classes in this country. They have thought about the matter probably for as many years as the noble Duke has weeks, and they have come to the conclusion that it is a Bill which they earnestly and ardently desire; and not suddenly, but after agitation continued for a series of years. My Lords, I think it would be capable of easy proof that the measure is a very considerable extension of the Act of 1880, and that it confers a very great advantage upon the employed by making the question of liability for accident depend upon an issue generally of great simplicity, whether negligence can be proved, and by getting rid of all those limitations and restrictions which have in the past caused litigation to be so continuous and which have given rise to so much discussion in the Law Courts as to the law declared upon the subject. Turning to the clause round which the discussion has chiefly pro-
  84
  ceeded, the observations of some noble Lords would seem to indicate complete hostility to any proposal to prohibit contracting out; but I do not understand that to be the view of my noble and learned Friend who last spoke. As far as I could gather, he has given his general adhesion to the principle of prohibiting contracting out of the Bill. The clause prohibiting contracting out can be justified on two grounds: In the first place, the Bill would be a dead letter in many cases if that were not prohibited. It is well-known that in many employments not so highly organised as those which have Trades Unions there is no fund and no provision for compensation in the case of accident. Those are the cases which most need protection, and where the benefit of the Bill could only be reaped by prohibiting contracting out. In the second place, it would prevent contracting out as a principle which is against the public interest. I say a contract to contract out in such a matter is against the public interest. What does it mean? It means this: Persons are injured in the course of their work in industrial enterprises. They are not able to support themselves, and are thrown upon the community if they contract out of the provisions of the Act. The community is not bound to enforce every agreement between parties; and you are not bound to enforce any contract the result of which, on the whole, must be regarded as against the public interest. There is a great deal of confusion on the subject. The Bill does not prevent people making any promises to each other unless those promises are against the public interest; and I maintain that there is no inherent right in any two people to make engagements and to compel the community to enforce those engagements being carried out. Therefore, I say that wherever the engagement is of a nature against the public interest, it is perfectly legitimate to forbid contracting out. I do not understand that there is any great controversy about the general provision forbidding contracting out; the suggestion rather is that there ought to be some exceptions from the general provision. Of course, when we come to discuss the Bill in Committee any proposal to that effect would have to be considered. There have, however, been some observations made in the

  85
  course of the Debate to which I should like to call attention. In all cases, as far as I understand, in which the opinion of the employés has been taken by ballot, the alternative has been put to them, Would you prefer to retain your insurance fund, or would you have the Act, and the Act alone, without the insurance fund? I can quite understand that to a question so put the workman would make the answer that they would prefer to have the insurance fund without the Act to having the Act without the insurance fund. It should be remembered that the question is put in a manner which assumes that their choice is only between the two. I do not believe their choice is only between the two. I think better of the employers of this country than to believe it; for if the choice was between the two, it could only be by the employers showing a disregard of those who are in their employ, which I should deeply lament to think characterises any of them. The noble Marquess (Lord Londonderry) apparently entered upon this part of the case with the intention of cursing the Government proposal, but it seems to me that he blessed it altogether, because his facts proved that, notwithstanding threats or suggestions made at the time the last Employers' Liability Act was passed, employers in the North of England have continued to contribute very largely to funds of this description, and I should think it very astonishing if they had not done so. Why do they make these promises, and pay "smart money" to men who are injured? Because they do not like that a man injured in their employ should be left to charity or to the Poor Law, and they think that such a man is entitled to receive some consideration from those in whose employ he is. That is why they contribute, and I should think ill of them if they were to cease to contribute. And the Bill only comes to this: that the contribution they make is to be more complete. That is all it comes to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Litigation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will deal with the question of litigation in a moment. We are told that the total number of cases resulting from negligence is 6 per cent. Therefore, 94 per cent. of the cases will go on as now in their nature and character of the compensa-
  86
  tion paid. It is only in 6 per cent. of the whole number of accidents that compensation would have to be made under the Act. It was said that employers would refuse in every case to do for their workmen in future what they thought proper to do now. It seems to me they would be most unwise if they did so, and it would show a monstrous and outrageous disregard of their employés if they were to do anything of the kind. It is said that the London and North Western contributes so largely to their employés' insurance fund in order to escape from litigation. I confess I can hardly accept that statement with gravity. That they should pay, as we have been told, £20,000 a year to escape litigation when the number of cases in which they would be liable to litigation under the old law is so very trivial indeed, that for that alone they should make this contribution is a draft upon my credulity which I am not able to honour. No; I am satisfied they make that contribution with higher and nobler motives. The noble Lord said that the proposed change in the law would compel employers to cease contributing to these funds in future. I have listened with a little surprise to that conclusion, considering what were the premises. Your Lordships are told that these are funds which bind together employer and employed, which have created good feeling and harmonious working between them, and you are told, further, that the only effect of the Government's proposal would be to compel the mine-owner to pay a premium for insurance, the repayment of which would come from the consumer of the article. Because the mine-owner may be compelled to pay some small premium of insurance, which ultimately would come out of the produce of the industry, the noble Lord would on that account abandon a system which for years has maintained harmony between employer and employed. Well, I fail to see that the conclusion is justified by the premises. I do not blame those who suggest that the funds would go to pieces. They do not like the Bill, and it is quite natural, while the Bill is in progress, that they should, practically speaking, take up an irreconcilable attitude; but it by no means follows that if the Bill is passed the better feelings of employers of labour will not prevail. The Bill, your Lordships will observe,

  87
  does not compel a workman to avail himself of the rights which it gives. It does not say he shall sue.
  LORD ESHER: You forbid the contract.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, because it provides that a workman cannot contract out of the Act; it does not compel him to bring an action and to sue. No doubt there may be individuals in whose case there would not be any restraining motive at all; but is it not obvious that such cases would be so limited in number that it would be monstrous and absurd in any company or any individual, on the chance of that limited number of cases, to break up a system which they say has worked well and for the advantage of the employers and workmen? Therefore, it seems to me it is in the highest degree improbable —I should regret to believe it—that these funds will be destroyed. Certainly there is nothing in this Bill which compels such destruction. If they are destroyed it will be by those who choose to destroy them, and I entertain still the hope that even if the Bill passes in its present form no such destruction will ensue.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday the 8th of December next.

SHOP HOURS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD ACTONbegged to move two necessary Amendments; the first was merely a question of language, and the second was an Amendment which the operation of the Bill required.
  Amendments proposed,
  In Clause 2, page 1, line 8, after ("salaries") insert ("payable"); after line 12, insert— "(2) In Ireland, such salaries and expenses shall be defrayed, if payable or incurred by the Council of a municipal borough, out of the borough fund or borough rate, and, if payable or incurred by the Commissioners of a town or township, out of any rate leviable by them as such Commissioners throughout the whole of their district."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 260.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  NATIONAL DEBT REDEMPTION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow: (The Lord President [E. Kimberley]); and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 282.)
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 4) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow: (The Lord President [E. Kimberley]); and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 283.)

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 272.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.