Sitting of 2 August 1894

QUESTIONS.

  DUNNET SCHOOL BOARD.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the School Board of Dunnet, Caithness-shire, has been paying a feu duty of £5 annually for the site of the school buildings and schoolmaster's garden of the old parochial school handed over to them by the heritors; that this feu duty was imposed by the heritors on themselves some time before the passing of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, and is greatly in excess of the value of the land; whether he is aware that the heritors, three in number at the time, sold to one of themselves the former site of the parochial school building, and, after parting the proceeds of the sale amongst themselves, entered into the above arrangement, whereby they have obtained relief from a burden which they are legally entitled to bear, and have thrown

  1559
  that burden on the general ratepayers; whether he is further aware that the factor for the largest heritor of the parish was chiefly instrumental in carrying out this transaction, and has been Chairman of the School Board for many years, and has resisted all inquiries in regard to the transaction complained of; whether he will cause full inquiry to be made into this matter; and whether there are any other parishes in Scotland that have had a similar burden cast on them?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The Department has no knowledge of the facts alleged, and has no means of inquiring into questions of a legal character, nor into the transactions of the heritors in the past. It is the duty of the School Board—the chairman of which is the Free Church minister—to maintain the interests of the ratepayers, and to inform the Department if those interests have in any way been set aside or disregarded. But if any complaint, accompanied by specific details, is sent to the Department I shall ask the School Board for an explanation.

  THE GODLEY ESTATE, SOUTH LEITRIM.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission have made any arrangements with regard to the supply of turbary to the tenants on the Godley Estate at Carrigallen, South Leitrim, who have purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts; and whether they can state in what way they propose to distribute the 55 acres of bog in Corrawalleen and 10 in Crickeen, having regard to the fact that the tenants were in absolute possession of their turf banks until they were induced to take bog tickets some years ago?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed by the Land Commission that the tenants who have purchased have, under their Vesting Orders, all rights of turbary over the bogs in the vendor's possession, which they had as tenants. No special arrangements have been made by the Land Commission as to turbary, as it is only in cases where the agreements so
  1560
  provide that the provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 1891 can be put in force.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for 1893 will be circulated to Members?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Stationery Office that the Report has been printed, and that copies will be obtainable at the Vote Office in a day or so.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOL FEE-GRANTS.
  MR. BUCKNILL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the fee-grant, in the case of many voluntary schools, was, up to April, 1893, paid quarterly, on or before the 1st day of January, April, July, and October; whether, in the case of some schools, a new practice has been introduced, whereby the grant expected on the 30th June, 1893, has been deferred until the payment of the Government grant in August, throwing thereby such schools into arrears of fee-grant and causing a loss of resource for one quarter of a year; and whether he will take the matter into his consideration?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): There has been no change in the practice with regard to the time of payment of the fee-grant since the fee-grant was instituted, and, therefore, none under the present Government. The practice is, and always has been, that three quarterly instalments are paid on fixed days, and the balance together with the annual grant.

  BENGAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the Bengal community at the apparent favour shown to European Public Bodies in Calcutta in the Rules for representation upon the Bengal Legislative Council, both the European Chamber of Commerce and the European Trades Association having

  1561
  been authorised to elect representatives, a privilege denied to the National Chamber of Commerce (a larger body than the European Chamber), consisting of Indian merchants, the British Indian Association, which includes all the foremost landholders of the Province, and the Indian Association, which represents the ryots and middle classes; and whether, after looking into the matter, he will arrange for the removal of this ground of complaint; and whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that (as shown at page 6 of the Return of April 26 last, relating to the Legislative Councils in India) one of the two appointments of Europeans, Nos. 9 and 11, recommended by the Calcutta Trades Association and the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, appears to be in contravention of Rule II., Clause D, and final Proviso of the Regulations printed at page 19 of the same Return?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I am not aware that dissatisfaction exists among the Bengal community at the apparent favour shown to European Public Bodies in Calcutta in the Rules for representation upon the Bengal Legislative Council. Under the existing Rules the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, which is not an exclusively European Association, is the only Commercial Body entitled to recommend a member of the Bengal Legislative Council. The Trades Association was informally consulted by the Lieutenant Governor as to one of the appointments which he recently had to make; but he was in no way bound to consult them or to act on their advice. Eight of the ten non-official members are native gentlemen, and I see no reason for intervening in this matter, which, under the Act, is left to the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. The hon. Member will see from what I have stated that there is no contravention of Rule II. (D) and the final Proviso of the Regulations printed at page 19 of the same Return. Mr. Womask was appointed by the Lieutenant Governor under Rule III.

  LONDONDERRY BARRACKS.
  MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he will be able to introduce the Provisional Order Bill required for the pur-
  1562
  poses of the erection of the new Londonderry Barracks?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said: The plans of Londonderry Barracks have been completed, but unfortunately we have not been able to agree upon terms for the acquisition of the land, and the time at disposal during the present Parliamentary Session is not sufficient to allow of compliance with the Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to Bills of this character.
  MR. ROSS: Why were not the compulsory powers put in force?
  MR. WOODALL: That could only be done with the sanction of Parliament, and there is not time to get it in this Parliament.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Does the hon. Gentleman mean this Parliament or this Session?
  MR. WOODALL: This Session, of course.

  IRISH LAND AGENTS AS MAGISTRATES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that many land agents in Ireland are also Justices of the Peace, and that some of them have utilised the position to quietly carry out technical powers without giving the required statutable notice in regard to evictions and other matters; whether he will cause the Lord Chancellor to make inquiry into such violations of the law; and whether he will advise the discontinuance of appointing land agents to the Magistracy?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There are a considerable number of gentlemen holding the Commission of the Peace who are also land agents. The practice referred to in the question as to not giving statutable notices in regard to evictions and other matters has not come under the notice of the Lord Chancellor in any case. If a Magistrate should be found to have been guilty of a violation of the law, the Lord Chancellor will take prompt notice of such action. The question of discontinuing the appointment of land agents to the Magistracy will be referred to the Lord Chancellor, as the discretion in the matter will rest with him.

  LUNACY IN IRELAND.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners (England) for the year ending 31st December, 1893, shows that the total number of registered lunatics in England and Wales amounts to 92,067, or one in every 336 of the population, and an increase of 2,245 over 1892, the largest annual increase yet registered, and that whilst said Report shows that 15·4 per cent. of all registered lunatics are due to heredity and 26 per cent. to intemperance, that still much difference of opinion prevails amongst alienists as to the exact causes of the great increase of lunacy observed in other countries as well as in Great Britain, he will recommend Her Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations with foreign Governments for the appointment of an International Commission to inquire into this most important and urgent subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,)(who replied) said: I have referred the question to the Commissioners in Lunacy, who report to me as follows:—It will be seen by a reference to page 6 of the 48th Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy for 1893, lately presented to the Lord Chancellor, that they are of opinion that there is no disproportionate increase of insanity, or, at all events, none at all material in England and Wales. The increase in the number of officially-known lunatics is thus dealt with in the Report:—
  "The increase in the number of officially-known lunatics is a very different thing, and is due mainly, if not altogether, to accumulation resulting from a diminished discharge rate, as has been well shown in the General Report of the Registrar General on the recent Census. From this Report, also, we learn that the increase in the total number of enumerated lunatics in the Census of 1881 over the number in 1871 was 15,484, while the corresponding increase in 1891 over 1881 was only 12,880, being a diminution of 2,600 in the decennial increase; and the diminution, occurring contemporaneously with an increase of the general population, would seem to support the opinion we have above expressed. The accumulation has been aggravated by (with other causes) the change of feeling which has undoubtedly occurred in the poorer classes, and which now leads them, without reluctance, to see placed in asylums insane and mentally worn-out members of their families whom they would formerly lave retained in their homes."
  1564
  The matter is, however, one of great importance, and I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  DR. KENNYsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer. The Commissioners, however, seemed to beg the question in their Report as to the cause of the increase in insanity. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would go fully into it.

  WEXFORD GRAND JURY.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that Mr. J. J. Percival, junior, who is on the Wexford Grand Jury, lives in lodgings and does not contribute anything to the county cess; who is responsible for his appointment; and if he will bring in a Bill early next Session to abolish the present Grand Jury system?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Neither the Grand Jury nor its officers are under the control of the Executive Government, and the Executive has no means of knowing whether the facts are as alleged in the question. The Grand Jury is appointed by the High Sheriff of the county for each Assizes.

  DRAINAGE LOANS IN IRELAND.
  MR. ROSS: On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state how much public money advanced by the Treasury in Ireland, under the Drainage and other Acts for the improvement of property, to tenants who have, since said advances, been evicted from their holdings between the 1st of May, 1879, and the present date at present remains unpaid?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is assumed that the reference of the hon. and learned Member is to loans to tenants in Ireland who have been evicted from their holdings between May 1, 1879, and the present date remaining unpaid under the Land Improvement Acts, often described as the Drainage Acts, and the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; and it is estimated that the amount outstanding in respect of such advances under these Acts as are alluded to in the question is about £20,000.
  MR. ROSS: If the Evicted Tenants Bill should become law will these tenants share in its benefits?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That is a question I cannot answer off-hand.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will put down the Government Amendments on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill at once, in order that Members may have time for considering them?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Government Amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill will be circulated on Saturday morning.
  MR. HOZIER: I wish to know when the Report stage of the Bill will be taken, and why it should, to the great inconvenience of all the Scotch Members, be postponed until after the various stages of the Equalisation of Rates Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I have always stated that the Scotch Local Government Bill would come on after the Equalisation of Rates Bill. I was asked to give at least 48 hours' notice, and I take this opportunity of saying that I expect the Bill will come on early next week.
  MR. HOZIER: Does that mean on Monday or Tuesday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot say. The Equalisation of Rates Bill comes on to-morrow; but we cannot say how long it will take. It may require Monday and Tuesday. Then there will be the Report stage of the Evicted Tenants Bill, but in the present circumstances that is not likely to take very long. Therefore, I hope we shall by Monday or Tuesday have disposed of that Bill and of the Equalisation of Rates Bill; and then, of course, the Scotch Bill will be taken immediately.
  MR. HOZIER: Will the Report stage of the Scotch Bill be taken before the Report stage of the Equalisation of Rates Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot state that positively. That must depend very much upon the nature of the Amendments to the Equalisation of Rates Bill.
  MR. HOZIER: Why should the Scotch Bill be postponed until after the Equalisation of Rates Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government must have a little latitude in the disposal of their own business.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: As there must be an interval between the Committee and the Report stages of the Equalisation of Rates Bill, will the Government consider whether the Scotch Bill cannot be taken in that interval?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will consider the question, and see whether I can give some answer to-morrow.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Government could not find facilities for the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill as well as the Rates Bill?
  [No answer was given.]

  LORD DE FREYNE ESTATE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in The Irish Daily Independent of the 12th July, 1894, from which it appears that Lord de Freyne's tenants have offered, as a settlement of the dispute, that the taxed costs of the injunction motion shall be paid by the tenants; that the tenants who have been evicted and the tenants against whom eviction proceedings were pending previous to January, 1894, are to pay (where judicial rents have been fixed) two years' judicial rent, less payment on the last year's rent, and to receive a clear receipt to May, 1894; that on holdings where judicial rents have not been fixed the future rents shall be settled by arbitration; that half the cost of ejectment shall be paid by the tenant and half by the landlord; and that in case the arbitrators cannot fix the rents by 20th July, the time for payment of the first year shall be extended until 20th August, 1894, but that Lord de Freyne has refused to entertain these terms on the ground that they were inadequate; whether, in view of the refusal of Lord de Freyne to entertain as a voluntary settlement the terms proposed, he will endeavour to secure that the Evicted Tenants Bill shall so pass as to provide that the tenants on the French-park property shall be able to avail themselves of its benefits; and whether, pending the passing of the Bill, he will con-

  1567
  sider the advisability of withholding the assistance, by their presence, of the forces of the Crown, at the further trampling down by Lord de Freyne's cattle of the crops sown by the tenants for their maintenance during the coming winter?
  MR. MACARTNEYasked whether it was a fact that Archbishop Walsh and the Trustees of Maynooth College were mortgagees of this property; whether they were not the real evictors; and whether, therefore, there was any ground for the persistent allegations that had been made as to the evictions on this estate?
  MR. DILLON: I would ask whether that question is in Order? I may say that the charge that has been made is, as I know, an absolutely false one.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say now as to whether it is in Order or not; but as the information is not known to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I think the question had better be put down on the Paper, when I shall be able to judge of it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is quite true I do not know the facts. In answer to the question on the Paper, I have to say I am informed that the terms offered by the tenants and refused by Lord de Freyne are summarised with substantial accuracy in the first paragraph. With regard to the second paragraph, I am not aware of any reasons why the evicted tenants on this estate should not participate in the benefits to be conferred by the Bill now before Parliament. As regards the last paragraph, the Constabulary will give no assistance whatever to the agent of Lord de Freyne in trampling down by cattle the crops sown by the tenants, though, of course, the Executive cannot in any way abdicate its duty of maintaining the public peace, whatever the Executive may think of the action of the landlord's agent.
  MR. HAYDENasked whether it was not the fact that Lord de Freyne had brought in more cattle in order to trample down the crops of other tenants who had been evicted?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is a fact of which I am not informed.

  WIMBLEDON RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee appointed to take evidence in the matter of the Wimbledon rifle ranges being dangerous to the public using Wimbledon Common has yet made its Report; if so, will he communicate its purport to the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): The Committee have rendered a Report, the purport of which is that the two long ranges—those near the cemetery—must remain closed unless the Volunteer corps concerned and the Putney Burial Board make such arrangements as will enable these ranges to be used in safety. As regards the two short ranges, the Committee recommend that they may be kept open. The hon. Member will, no doubt, have read in The Times of to-day the decision of Mr. Justice North with regard to these ranges and the undertaking of the Volunteers on the subject, which seems to promise a satisfactory solution of the question.

  FLOATING DERELICTS.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Departmental Committee, appointed to take evidence as to floating derelicts, has yet finished its inquiry; if so, when will its Report be presented to the House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): I believe that the Committee have finished taking evidence, but that they have not yet been able to complete their Report. I much doubt whether it will be possible to present it before the end of the Session.

  THE WALTHAM EXPLOSIONS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report on the most recent explosion at Waltham will be circulated; and whether, looking to the circumstances of the dismissal of the late superintendent, Colonel M'Clintock, he will also present the evidence, which includes that of this officer?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Report will shortly be presented,

  1569
  and the Paper will include the evidence, as in the case of the previous Report of the same Committee.

  STATION HOSPITALS IN INDIA.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, when the large saving to the Government of India was effected through the institution of station hospitals and the abolition of forage allowances to certain medical officers, it was fully understood by all parties concerned that, in accordance with universal precedent and custom in India, a certain amount of the said saving would be returned as charge pay or staff allowance to medical officers, especially brigade-surgeons in charge of the hospitals, in recognition of the increased responsibilities—military, medical, and financial—imposed upon them; whether it is on record that the claim by these officers for such allowance was considered by the India Office in 1888 to be a just claim; what were the grounds for refusing it; and whether it will now be re-considered?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am not aware of any understanding that a portion of the saving effected by the institution of station hospitals in India and the abolition of forage allowance to certain medical officers would be returned as charge pay to the medical officers in charge of such hospitals. There is no record that the claim for such allowance was considered by the Secretary of State for India in 1888 to be a just claim. It was refused on the ground that the pay and allowances fixed for the Army Medical Department in India were intended as remuneration in full for all duties which might devolve on officers of that department. There is no intention of re-considering the previous decision.

  POLLUTION OF THE FORTH AT CRUICKNESS.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent correspondence in The Scotsman, complaining that the Forth at Cruickness and other places is contaminated by mud brought from Grangemouth in boats; and whether the Board has any power to prevent what is described in the correspondence as a public
  1570
  nuisance; and, if so, whether that power will be used?
  MR. BRYCE: This matter has been engaging my attention for some little time, and I have been in communication with the Harbour Authority respecting it; but as I cannot at present give a full answer, I will ask my hon. Friend to defer his question for some days.

  PRACTICAL MINERS AS MINES INSPECTORS.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received a communication from the Merthyr Valley Colliery workmen in favour of the appointment of practical miners as Sub-Assistant Inspectors of Mines; whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Coroner's Jury on the Cilfynydd Colliery explosion in favour of more frequent inspections of mines; and whether he will re-consider his decision and appoint persons from the ranks of the workmen as Sub-Assistant Inspectors of Coal Mines, as he has recently done for the Merionethshire quarries?
  MR. ASQUITH: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. I have recently appointed two men of practical experience as workmen to be Assistant Inspectors of Quarries and Metalliferous Mines. This is as far as I can go in the present year; nor can I give any pledge as to the future, except that I will give full consideration to these and other representations in the same sense.

  THE CITY RATE.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board from what source the rate of 4s. 10d. in the £1, which was stated to be the approximate rate in the City, was taken; and whether he is aware that the rate in the parish of St. Martin Outwich for the last 12 months was 6s. 9d.?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): It appears from Returns received by the Local Government Board that the average rates in the £1 on the Poor Law valuation of the total rates raised in the City of London

  1571
  during the three years ended at Lady-Day, 1893, were 4s. 8d., 4s. 9d., and 4s. 8d. respectively; and allowing for leakages, which, according to a recent Return amounted to 3½ per cent., the total average annual rate in the City would be approximately 4s. 10d. The Return published by the London County Council in April last gives a similar result. I do not know what is the total amount of rates levied during the last 12 months in the parish of St. Martin Outwich. That parish, I understand, contains 25 houses with a population of 102. If the rates for the past year were as high as is suggested there must have been a considerable increase as compared with some preceding years, and presumably from some exceptional cause.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the figures.

  ST. KATHERINE'S HOSPITAL, REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether any changes or reforms have been made in connection with the Charity known as St. Katherine's Hospital, situate in the Regent's Park, since the representative of the Charity Commissioners in this House described it as a "scandal"; and whether the Charity Commissioners are willing to lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the past and present position of the Charity, and the efforts which have been made to effect reforms in its administration?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON,): I must refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 27th of May, 1889, by the late Mr. W. H. Smith; on the 15th of September, 1893, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire; and on the 3rd of November, 1893, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. As the endowment is above the £50 limit, the Charity Commissioners have no power to frame a scheme, except upon the application of the trustees, and no such application has been made. The Lord Chancellor may frame new Rules, if so empowered by Royal Warrant, and it is understood that
  1572
  the subject is now engaging his attention.

  THE BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to present a Return of the total cost to this country of the Behring Sea Arbitration?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Certain particulars have yet to be received from Canada, but directly the account is complete a Return of the total cost will be laid.

  INDIAN TROOPSHIPS.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether three mercantile transports (two of the P. and O. Company and one of the British India Company) have been hired for the coming trooping season, without previously consulting the Government of India, while the Warren Hastings and Clive, belonging to the Indian Government, and specially constructed for the purpose, were available; whether on previous occasions these two vessels have been employed on the same duty; and what is the cost of the three hired steamers, deducting Coal and Canal Dues?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is the case that three steamers have been taken up for the trooping service to India this season. They have been hired at a tonnage rate per month, so that the full cost of the service will not be known precisely till the end of the season. The hiring of transports is conducted by the Director of Transports at the Admiralty in communication with the India Office. The Indian marine steamers Clive and Warren Hastings were provided for local trooping in Indian waters, and it has not been customary, nor is it desirable, to employ them on the home service except on special occasions.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As the Government of India have to pay for the transport, is it not desirable that they should have some voice as to the mode of conveyance?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: As to the Government of India paying for the transport, that is a matter of internal administration into which I will not

  1573
  enter. There are reasons for the course which has been adopted which it is undesirable to state to the House; but if the right hon. Gentleman will have confidence in me to that extent I will explain them to him in private.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether war has been declared between China and Japan; and whether he can give the House any information as to the military and naval operations that have taken place?
  The following question also appeared on the Paper on the same subject:—
  MR. WEBSTER: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether several Japanese men-of-war attacked and sunk the merchant vessel Kow Chung; whether the Kow Chung is a British vessel, and flies the British flag; if this occurred prior to a declaration of war between China and Japan; and, if these facts are correct, what steps the Government propose to take for this outrage on the British flag, and to obtain adequate compensation for the families of the Englishmen who perished by this unusual incident in naval warfare?
  SIR E. GREY: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to both of these questions. War has been declared, but we have received no information as to any military or naval operations except the encounter in which the Kow Chung was sunk. The Kow Chung is a British vessel belonging to the Indo - China Steam Navigation Company chartered to the Chinese for the conveyance of troops. The hon. Member has, no doubt, observed that the accounts of what has taken place are most conflicting, and till the facts are placed beyond dispute I cannot make a statement as to compensation. The Japanese Government have, however, informed us spontaneously that they are ready to make full reparation if it is found that their officers were in the wrong.
  Subsequently,
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, he could not see how this question was connected with that of the hon. Member for Ecclesall. It was not on all-fours. He had
  1574
  put a definite question as to whether compensation was to be given.
  SIR E. GREY: I have already said everything that it is possible to say in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and I do not think it necessary to read it out again. I will, however, show to it the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to see it.

  BRITISH RESIDENTS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Volksraad have recently passed a law denying the franchise to all foreign residents whose parents have not been naturalised?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have not received any official information in reference to this matter.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: But I would ask whether, as this law was passed some three months ago, he will endeavour to obtain this information?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have, of course, seen the information in the papers, but we have no official information.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the hon. Gentleman not tell me whether my statement is true? Have we no Representative in the Transvaal from whom he can get the information necessary to give an answer?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I think we have all the information we require about it; but we have no special official information.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is or is not the statement contained in my question a fact? Has such a law been passed, or has it not?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I believe such a law has been passed.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is it not the duty of British Representatives in foreign countries to report to the Home Government any alterations of law affecting British subjects?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I do not know what the actual duties of British Representatives in foreign countries are.

  DOMINICA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under

  1575
  Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of Sir Robert Hamilton on the affairs of Dominica will be presented to the House; and whether it will be accompanied by Correspondence indicating the decision of the Government as to the recommendations contained in the Report?
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I may at the same time ask when Sir Robert Hamilton's Report upon the condition of Dominica will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. O'DRISCOLL: I may at the same time ask if the hon. Baronet will state when he expects to be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Sir Robert Hamilton concerning the condition of Dominica?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Report of Sir R. Hamilton, and the observations of the Governor on the Report (both very voluminous), have been most carefully considered. I will lay the Papers as soon as possible, but I regret that I cannot name a date. They will include Lord Ripon's Despatches dealing with the subject.

  THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH AND THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a letter from the Bishop of St. Asaph, which appeared in The Times of 31st July, stating that it was much to be regretted that Mr. Acland should have said in his place in the House of Commons that he signed a Circular which he never signed, and further stating that the Circular did not state that the school was undenominational; and whether these statements are in accordance with the facts of the case?
  MR. ACLAND: I have seen the letter to The Times of July 31st from the Bishop of St. Asaph. The Bishop appears to be under some misapprehension when he states that I said in the House that he signed a Circular which he never signed. The facts are as follows: I was asked on Friday last, in a question by the hon. Member for West Denbigh, whether my attention had been called to a certain Circular, of the year
  1576
  1888, relating to Ruthin Grammar School. I replied that I had seen it, and I said that it was signed, among others, by the Bishop of St. Asaph, Mr. Cornwallis West, and Sir John Puleston. The date of the Circular—an old Circular of more than six years ago—was before the House. It was obvious, I think, that the only person who could sign the Circular in 1888 as Bishop of St. Asaph was the Bishop of that time, to whom, of course, I referred. I had no intention of making any misstatement about the present Bishop. With reference to the other statement of the Bishop mentioned in the question, which runs as follows: "The Circular did not state that the school was undenominational," it is sufficient to quote from the Circular, which I have in my hand to-day, as I had on Friday last, the following words:—"The school is undenominational." The rest of the sentence, which it is not really necessary to quote for this purpose is as follows: "and the pupils are not subject to any religious test." The exact date of the Circular is 12th May, 1888.

  EVICTIONS IN COUNTY SLIGO.
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of James Mullarkey, of Toulistrane, County Sligo, who was in 1883 evicted by the mortgagees of the estate from his farm of 64a. Or. 12p., held at £100 a year; is he aware that Thomas Clarke, of Tobercurry, bailiff to Lord Harlech and others, was put into the farm then at the rent of £77 a year, and never tilled any of it since; whether he is aware that Mullarkey afterwards became entitled to £700 out of the lands of Drummartin, whereupon the mortgagees of the town-land of Tourlistrane issued a writ of summons against Mullarkey for £450, for which they got a charging order; whether, notwithstanding that the rent was thus satisfied, Mullarkey has ever since been deprived of his farm, besides the balance of the £700, and is now in a state of destitution; and whether he will make inquiry into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts appear to be correctly stated. The arrears of

  1577
  rent were not paid until 1885, when the period within which Mullarkey could have obtained a writ of restitution had expired. I am informed that all the dealings with the estate, including the acceptance of Thomas Clarke as tenant, were carried out by order of the Court of Chancery. Clarke uses the farm for grazing purposes, and Mullarkey, I am informed, has no employment and no means at present.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to put the grant in aid to the National Gallery of Ireland on a similar basis to that of the grant to the National Gallery of England; i.e., to permit it to accumulate from year to year, at the discretion of the Commissioners, and to allow the Commissioners to carry over the unspent balance of the grant from one financial year to the following year, so as to allow accumulation for the purpose of purchasing more valuable works than can be acquired under the existing system?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Treasury have received no complaints of the working of the system of dealing with the annual grants to the National Gallery in Ireland, which has been long in force, and I am not aware that any portion of the grant has been surrendered to the Exchequer of late years; but I am afraid that it would not be possible to turn the annual grant into a "grant in aid" unless there was an endowment in aid of which it could be granted.

  FLOODS AT BELEEK.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that great discontent is felt among the farmers along the Upper Erne at the delay of the Local Drainage Authority in opening the sluice gates at Beleek, thus flooding the lands and allowing so great a mass of water to accumulate that it cannot be allowed to run off quickly without damaging the lands below Beleek; and whether, having regard to the large sums which have been spent on the drainage scheme, the Board of
  1578
  Works will take steps to advise the Drainage Board as to the proper management of the sluices until a more representative Local Authority can be constituted?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No, Sir; I am not aware of the circumstances stated in the first paragraph. The matter has, however, been referred to the Local Drainage Board for their observations. The Board of Works are not empowered by Statute to undertake responsibilities with respect to the management of sluices, which is entirely in the hands of the Drainage Board.
  MR. DANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the circumstances and into the insufficiency of the Rules?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have no power to interfere.

  RABIES.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Cavan Board of Guardians, pointing out the necessity of power being given to the Local Authority to order the destruction of animals affected with rabies, paying compensation to the owners; whether the Privy Council will consider the reasons given in favour of the proposed change; and whether he is aware that in a recent case the Board were not allowed to give compensation for cattle slaughtered by order of the Veterinary Inspector, on the ground that they had been bitten by a mad dog, but were informed that they could only give compensation when an Order of the Board had been made previous to the slaughtering?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Attention has been drawn to the resolution referred to. The reasons given in favour of the proposed change will be considered with a view to the issue of such an Order as may be deemed necessary. In the case indicated in the third paragraph, in which the Guardians inquired whether they could pay compensation for cattle slaughtered in consequence of having been bitten by a supposed rabid dog, they were informed that Local Authorities were not empowered to pay compensation in such cases.

  HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE, PALL MALL.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the conditions as to building in the lease from the Crown of the site of Her Majesty's Theatre in Pall Mall, which now lies vacant; who is the lessee; whether the property is, in effect, in the hands of the mortgagee; and whether he can state the name of the mortgagee; and whether he will take any steps within his power to enforce the conditions of the lease?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The site of Her Majesty's Theatre is held under building agreements entered into between Mr. G. H. Tod Heatly and the Commissioner of Woods, the conditions of which provide for the completion of the new buildings before March 31, 1896. There have been difficulties not unnatural in the carrying out of so large a scheme of re-building which have led to delay, but the Crown's interests have not been prejudiced thereby at present. The Commissioner of Woods is not, however, satisfied with the present position of; matters; and unless progress should be made at an early date with the works, it may become necessary to take more active steps on the part of the Crown. It is understood that Mr. Tod Heatly's interest is mortgaged, but the Crown rent is still paid by him.
  MR. KNOX: Is not Lord Clanricarde the mortgagee of Mr. Tod Heatly's interest?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I believe that that is a fact.

  BELFAST TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the complaint that substitutes, at 12s. a week, are employed to do a great part of the work in the Belfast Telegraph Office; what is the maximum, and what the minimum, number of such substitutes employed at any one time during the past 12 months; and whether many of these substitutes are employed at night work?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): In addition to the 137 Established officers, I find that on an average 12 substitutes have been employed during the past year in the Belfast Telegraph Office. It cannot be said, therefore, that the substi-
  1580
  tutes do a great part of the work. The maximum number of such substitutes employed in any one week during the past 12 months is 15, the minimum number 5. Until recently one or two of these substitutes were regularly employed on duties terminating at 1.30 a.m.; but about a fortnight ago arrangements were made to relieve youths under 18 years of age from attendance after 11.45 p.m.

  THE EDUCATION MINISTER AND VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that in certain cases Her Majesty's Inspectors have notified managers of voluntary schools that they will require marching space to be provided in the infants' department; is this marching space included in the eight square feet basis specified in the Code as suitable provision; and if it is not, what further provision can be required under this head, and by what authority; and will he consider the advisability of not withholding any portion of the variable grant under Article 98 of the Code on the ground that the accommodation or the teaching staff approach too closely to the limits laid down by the Department, although they do not exceed them? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Department have reduced the variable grant under Article 98, Section (b), of the Code, in the case of Christ Church Voluntary School, Lowestoft, notwithstanding the fact that the school has earned the excellent merit grant for many years past; what is the reason for such reduction; is he aware that the reduction, amounting to about £25, is a very serious matter to the school, and may lead to its being closed; what is the number of school places in the said school as recognised by the Department, and the average attendance for the last school year reported upon; and will he inquire into the matter personally, with a view to cancelling the reduction? And I further desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the managers of Christ Church Infant School, Lowestoft, should refuse to admit children up to the limit of accommodation recognised by the Department, they will endanger their whole grant from the Department; while if they admit

  1581
  children up to the recognised limit, or even up to last year's average only, they are liable to reduction of the grant for crowded accommodation; and whether he is aware that the school in question is one of the brightest, best lighted, and healthiest schools in Lowestoft?
  MR. ACLAND: The three questions of the hon. Member appear all to refer to the Christ Church Infants' School at Lowestoft. I have directed a special inquiry on the whole matter to be made by Mr. Sharpe, Her Majesty's Senior Chief Inspector, who will visit Lowestoft at an early date for that purpose. He will inquire into the reason for the payment of the variable grant at the middle rate of 4s., instead of at the highest rate of 6s., as well as into the other points mentioned by the hon. Member—the marching space and the premises generally. I shall be happy to communicate any decision arrived at in the matter to the hon. Member after I have had an opportunity of considering Mr. Sharpe's Report.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I should like to point out that one of my questions raises a general principle, and does not specifically refer to this school.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Member entitled to put a question of principle?
  MR. ACLAND: I can only say I will give this matter close personal attention.

  EVICTED FARMS ON THE MASSAREENE ESTATE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that District Inspector Browne, Royal Irish Constabulary, Drogheda, has been in the habit of sending a horse to grass gratis on the evicted farms at Collon, on the Massareene Estate, County Louth, and of requiring the mounted constable at Collon to look after the horse daily; and whether the Inspector General will take any action in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The District Inspector to whom the matter has been referred states that there is no truth in the allegations in question.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman inquired of anyone besides the District Inspector?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The proper course is to apply to the officer in charge. The incident that originated the report would appear to be this: that some years ago a Shetland pony belonging to the wife of the officer in question grazed a farm in the locality.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return of Building Societies, moved for on 11th January, will be circulated to Members?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The whole of the manuscript of this Return has been in the hands of the printers since the 17th ultimo, when it was ordered to be printed by the House. I understand from the printers that tables of figures such as the Return consists of take longer to print than mere letterpress. They will, however, lose no time in setting up the type, and will send on the proof in instalments to the Home Office, where there will be no delay in correcting it.
  MR. JACKSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when we may expect it?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: No, Sir; it is impossible to do that.

  COLDBATH FIELDS MONEY ORDER OFFICE.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, pending the alterations to the Money Order Office in Coldbath Fields, he will arrange for the staff to be accommodated elsewhere, Lord Playfair and Dr. Corfield having reported that is not justifiable to continue the use of the offices in their present condition; whether the floor of the chapel will be raised within four of the windows as suggested; and whether the use of the lower rooms will be discontinued?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Friday last to the hon. Member for the Watford Division, that the alterations to the Money Order Office can be carried out without interruption to the use of the building. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative. It is not pro-

  1583
  posed to raise the floor of the old chapel, but the windows are being altered in accordance with the recommendation in Lord Playfair and Dr. Corfield's Report.

  THE APPLEDORE CONTRACT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact that the Board of Trade have given their sanction to the Appledore contract; whether he is aware that formerly the work was looked after by a Board of Trade Surveyor, but since the recent appointment of a London foreman shipwright the surveying is not closely watched; whether supervision is now used to see that the work is properly done; and whether the names and amounts of the various tenders will be supplied when the contracts are finished as agreed upon with respect to certain Admiralty contracts?
  MR. BRYCE: The statutory sanction of the Board of Trade has been given to the Appledore contract accepted by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The Commissioners formerly obtained the services of the surveyors of the Board of Trade to superintend the repairs of their light vessels, but this work is now done by their own foreman shipwright under the direction of their Inspector of Lights. They inform me that the superintendence is done in a most thorough manner, and that the strictest supervision is exercised. The names of the firms tendering and the amounts of the tenders invited by General Lighthouse Authorities who are not Government Departments have not been heretofore laid before Parliament, and I am advised that in the absence of statutory authority I cannot require this to be done.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if the Fair Wages Resolution is enforced in the matter of this contract?
  MR. BRYCE: The Board of Trade did communicate with the Commissioners of Irish Lights on the question, and they required that they did not feel bound to make any inquiries on the subject.
  MR. FIELD: Am I to understand the Board of Trade are in favour of sending Irish work over to England?
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member must certainly understand nothing of the kind. The fact is, we have nothing to
  1584
  do with the acceptance of these contracts. I can do nothing further than exercise a purely financial control.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the Irish Board responsible to no authority in this House for failing to carry out the Fair Wages Resolution?
  MR. BRYCE: I think not. It is not a Government Department. It considers it is not bound by the Resolution of the House.
  MR. FIELD: Will the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the Chief Secretary, endeavour to reform the constitution of the Board?
  MR. BRYCE: As my right hon. Friend stated the other day, that matter is engaging the attention of Irish Office and of the Board of Trade.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to use coercion in the matter?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE CONVERSION OF THE INDIAN FOUR PER CENT. RUPEE LOAN.
  MR. COHEN: Will the Secretary for India inform the House what has been the result of the conversion of the Four per Cent. Indian Rupee Loan?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: On the 30th of June last the Secretary of State sanctioned the compulsory conversion of the 1842–43 Four per Cents, into Three-and-a-Half per Cents., and at the same time, gave holders of the other rupee loans the option of a similar conversion. The amount of the 1842–43 loan was 2,732 lakhs of rupees. Of these, according to a telegram from India, 2,459 lakhs have been actually converted, and 61 lakhs more have been deposited for conversion, the owners being at present unable by reason of absence to give the formal signature required. This leaves a balance of only 212 lakhs unconverted, but more than half of this is in the country treasuries, from which full returns of the conversion have not yet been received. The other Four per Cent. Rupee Loans amounted to about 6,777 lakhs, of which 1,326 lakhs have already been tendered for conversion. Thus, the total amount of Four per Cent. Rupee Debt tendered for conversion is 3,946 lakhs out of 9,509 lakhs, or more than two-fifths of the whole. I hope the

  1585
  House will think this — as indeed the Indian Government hold it to be—a most successful result.

  JABEZ BALFOUK.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated in to-day's newspapers, that Jabez Balfour is on his way to this country?
  SIR E. GREY: We have not received any confirmation of that report, nor any information with regard to it.

  THE RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to offer any facilities for this Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am happy to hear from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the negotiations with the parties are in such a favourable state that he hopes to be able to go on with the Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Does that mean that time will be given to discuss it?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is certainly my meaning. If an agreement between the parties is arrived at, the Bill will come before the House in its natural form.
  MR. TOMLINSON: What will happen if no agreement is come to? This is a Bill which interests a very large number of people, and the right hon. Gentleman must not take it for granted that any arrangement will be binding on all of us. It is a matter of public importance, and I ask if an opportunity will be given to discuss it?
  MR. BRYCE: This is a Bill which I hope is in such a condition that, with certain amendments, both parties in the House will be able to allow it to pass. I cannot say more than this at present.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. GOSCHEN: May I inquire whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give the House any information as to whether a time can now be fixed for the desired Debate on Indian finance? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot now name a day, I hope, at any rate, that due notice will be given, so that hon. Mem-
  1586
  bers who wish to take part in the Debate may make arrangements to be present.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Due notice will certainly be given. I recognise the great importance of the subject, and hope that, at the beginning of next week, I may be able to name the day when the discussion can take place.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION BILL.

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 4.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "house," to insert the words "or offices."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or offices,' be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he hoped the Government had given consideration to the matter since last night, and had been able to arrive at a conclusion.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had considered the point, and was prepared to accept the word "building" in place of "house."
    MR. CLANCYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "house," and insert "building."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Similar Amendment agreed to in line 41.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he wished to move, in page 3, line 41, after "house," to insert "or offices, or in sowing crops in or stocking the holding." It was ridiculous to send a restored tenant into a holding and leave him naked and unable to make use of his farm. But he did not want to waste the time of the Committee by arguing the matter. He simply made this observation in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to insert the words "or offices, or in sowing crops in or stocking the holding."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That those, words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he was sorry to say the Government could not consent to extend the object for which these advances might be made. They had already distinctly declined to extend that object.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he was sorry to hear this announcement. He believed Sir James Mathew's Commission had made a suggestion that a charge of this kind should be placed by the Guardians on the local rates. That seemed to him a matter that the Government might fairly take into account, leaving it entirely in the discretion of the Arbitrators. The right hon. Gentleman had announced that the Arbitrators would be a body who would have a general view over all these transactions. What difference, then, could it make to the Government, there being a good case for relief of this kind, if the Arbitrators were allowed to give it? The cases where it would be required might only be one, two, or three out of a large number; but in such cases he did not see why the Government should seek to restrict the view of the Arbitrators, especially as it was not proposed to make the operation mandatory.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it was true this was one of the recommendations of the Commission, but there were other recommendations of that Commission which the Government had not been able to embody in the policy of the Bill. It seemed to him that the object of the Amendment was one which they might fairly expect the tenant's friends to effect for him.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was still unwilling to abandon the hope that the right hon. Gentleman might consent to adopt, if not the words of the Amendment, at all events some modification of them. He thought "sowing crops" and "stocking the holding" were large words, and it might be desirable to substitute, say, sowing the first crop. Might he remind the right hon. Gentleman of the position in which the incoming tenant would stand, and of the obligation which would lie upon him? He would
    1588
    have to provide in an ordinary case a year's rent for the landlord and half the sum to be paid to the outgoing tenant, which in some cases might be a considerable amount. These two payments would strain the resources of the incoming tenant. There were about 4,000 tenants. About 2,000 would have the means to sow their crops. Well, £5 or £10 a-piece to the others to enable them to crop their holdings would only mean some £20,000. That would be a small sum to deduct from the £250,000. He did not suppose that one year's rent would amount to more than £20 per tenant, on an average, or a total of £80,000. That would leave £170,000 out of which to satisfy the new tenants. A considerable sum would be left after those tenants were satisfied. Of course, if there was no money left, the Arbitrators would not make grants for cropping; but if there was money left, surely the Arbitrators might be allowed a discretion as to whether or not it should be advanced for cropping the holdings.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he assented to the hon. Member's view that if the Arbitrators had not the money they could not make the advance. But the hon. Member forgot how many applicants for assistance there were likely to be under the Bill. It would not be a wise thing to leave the Arbitrators open to the temptation to make larger grants to some tenants than to others.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there were 4,000 evicted tenants, each of whom would probably receive about £20, which would make £80,000. There were 1,500 planters who would receive about three years' rent, or £60 each, making £90,000. The £80,000 and the £90,000 would together amount to £170,000, leaving a balance of £80,000, out of which a grant of £20 could be made to each tenant if necessary for a first year's crop. There were many who would not require anything, so that even after this there would be a large surplus left.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that in cases where there had been a large mass of tenants evicted the calls upon their neighbours would have been heavy. They knew that charity grew cold after a great many years, even in regard to the most deserving cases. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he did not wish to impose upon the Arbi-

    1589
    trators the temptation to use their funds improvidently. As they had trusted so much to the discretion of the Arbitrators they might go a little further, and trust them to husband their resources. He fancied the way they would work would be this: The landlord would in some cases give his consent; then an order would be made for restoring the tenant. At the moment of restoration an order would be made as to the amount of grant that would be necessary in connection with the order for restoration. The second matter of grant would not form a portion of the first order, but would be held over. The Commissioners would be anxious to see what the total amount of claim on them would be, and what drain there would be on their resources. Under the circumstances, it did not seem unreasonable to say in the Bill that the Commissioners at such and such times should have power to make such and such grant for seeding purposes. The right hon. Gentleman should not forget that Lord Beaconsfield had provided some thousands of pounds for Turkish refugees for the purpose of enabling them to seed their land—a strong order for a British Prime Minister to make in regard to the inhabitants of a foreign country. This was not a large matter, and he hoped the Government would make the concession.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it was true that this was not a large matter. On the previous day he had undertaken to consider between this and the Report whether he could carry out the view of the hon. Member for South Tyrone as to migration. He indicated that he was not himself very sanguine as to the operation being possible, but the intimation that he would consider how far he could entertain this proposal met with great favour from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He would like to observe that a small amount devoted to the purposes of migration would derange the calculation made by the hon. Member for North Kerry.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he thought that this question deserved most serious consideration. If the tenants were to be reinstated, and funds were to be devoted to provide buildings, as the House had already determined, the acceptance of the present proposal was but a small step further, and might
    1590
    be the means of rendering this Bill, if passed, really effective. He would point out that in all the efforts, private and public, in connection with the subject of the dispossessed tenants, the provision of seed had always been an important element. It was one of the powers conferred on the Congested Districts Board, and it was one of those measures of relief which had been recognised equally by Members on either Front Bench. The provision of seed was one of the things recognised as necessary, and for that reason he thought there was strong ground for urging the Government to take this step. He wished to add a word coming direct from the evicted tenants themselves. He had seen many of the evicted tenants, who said that reinstatement without help in the way of stock and seed would be comparatively valueless. He still hoped with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) that there might be a possibility of a compromise on this question, and if such a result were happily arrived at this would prove a most useful power.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, it would be better for the prospects of the Bill and of the Government of Ireland that other Members of the Opposition should take the same view of this subject as the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir A. Rollit), who had supported the Amendment. The action of the hon. Member was in strong contrast to that of hon. Members who by their absence had shown the Irish people, and the evicted tenants particularly, that they were absolutely indifferent to their fate. For his own part, he could not understand how it was that the Government refused to accept the Amendment. He did not believe the acceptance of it would mean the expenditure of a large sum of money. The Chief Secretary must know that there were cases of evicted tenants where it could not be necessary to expend much in repairing the property; and there were many cases where no such expenditure would be necessary, and where the balance which was proposed to allow the arbitrator to give might be spent in procuring seed for the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman might have had it brought under his notice that with regard to the tenants of

    1591
    Lord de Freyne, they were reinstated some time ago not by Act of Parliament, but nevertheless they were reinstated, and that in their case one of the chief difficulties was to procure money for providing them with seed and putting crops into the land. The money was provided at the time in the case of those tenants, but he was sorry to say that since then the crops had been wantonly destroyed by the landlord. Would not the right hon. Gentleman opposite say that it was reasonable that where money was obtainable for buildings, and where they were not necessary, the funds might be expended in assisting the tenants to go back to their farms to crop them and to work them? He could not see why this amount should be confined to the repair of buildings alone, and why it was not just as reasonable to ask that if money of this kind was to be granted to help the tenant to settle again it should not be given to him to help him to crop his land. He hoped the hon. Member for North Dublin would go to a Division on this matter, because the Chief Secretary had given no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that if the Amendment were pressed to a Division he should vote with the Irish Members, because he thought the position of the Government was, most illogical. He was not a hearty supporter of the Bill, but he did think that if there were tenants who were to be reinstated it was no use acting in a half-hearted fashion. They were going to lend money for rebuilding houses, but they were refusing grants for what was much more important—namely, re-stocking the farms and buying seed. He had said on previous occasions that there were certain tenants who ought to be reinstated, and his view was that the thing ought to be done thoroughly well and not in a half-hearted way.
    MR. T. M. HEALYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not put them to the trouble of dividing against him. Their request did not amount to a very large order.
    MR. SEXTONsuggested that the Chief Secretary should consider between this and the Report whether it was not possible to accept the Amendment. They might be able in conference to satisfy
    1592
    him that the financial objections were not insuperable.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In view of the pressure that seems to come from all parts of the House, I will consent to consider this matter, and, if possible, come to an arrangement.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CLANCYmoved to amend Clause 4 by striking out the words limiting the grant to £50 and inserting words enabling the Arbitrators to make a grant of such sum as they might think fit. He said it appeared to him that if the Government refused to accept such an Amendment as this they would be showing a very poor opinion of the three gentlemen whom they proposed to appoint as Arbitrators. Surely they must leave it to these gentlemen to decide whether the sum of £50 should not be increased in special cases. There were many cases on which not nearly £50 would be required. In some cases perhaps not even £10 would be asked for, but there were a few cases in which £50 would not meet the requirements. He thought it would be a most ridiculous thing if they could not trust to the discretion of the Arbitrators, and if they could not give them a perfectly free discretion and a free hand in the matter.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the words "a sum not exceeding fifty pounds," and insert the words "such sum as they may deem fit."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. No doubt in many cases £100 would not be an excessive grant, and if we were dealing with an unlimited amount I should be glad to give it. But the sum at my disposal is small, and might possibly be subject to a treble demand for arrears, compensation, and dilapidations, and I therefore cannot afford to make the grant more than £50.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he thought that the Government might very well have left this matter to the discretion of the Arbitrators. It was presumed that they were reasonable and

    1593
    impartial men, and he could not understand why the Chief Secretary should hamper their powers on such a point as this. There were many cases in which £50 would not be sufficient, and if the matter were left to the Arbitrators he did not think any harm could be done. Surely they might be expected to keep their eye on the public money quite as well as the Chief Secretary. He did hope the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, and not merely meet it in an amiable way and with a pleasant smile by announcing that he would consider it before the Report stage. While he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for good intentions, he was bound to say the promise to consider the matter before the Report stage was not a very alluring one, because they might anticipate when the Report stage was reached that the Chief Secretary would come to them with an equally amiable manner, but without his smile, and say that he would not accept the Amendment.
    MR. J. REDMONDsaid, he could understand the right hon. Gentleman standing out for some limit with the view of checking undue expenditure on the part of the Arbitrators, but he could not understand how it was that when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set apart only £100,000 for the purpose he had the limit of £50; and yet now, when he had increased the sum to £250,000, he still retained the same limit.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the argument was a very ingenious one; but his reply was that, though he was only able to put £100,000 in the Bill originally, he had hoped from the first to make the sum larger. Considering how far the Government had gone in putting this proposal in the Bill—and £50 was no inconsiderable sum—he hoped hon. Members would not press the Amendment to a Division. He would relieve the hon. Member for East Clare on this occasion by stating that he could not even promise to reconsider his decision before Report.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he believed that in most cases £50 would be found to be sufficient, but he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, while fixing a limit for ordinary cases, to give the Arbitrators a discretion in cases where in their opinion
    1594
    special and exceptional circumstances existed.
    MR. J. MORLEYthought these special and exceptional cases ought to be met by Irish generosity. Did not hon. Members see what an invitation the Amendment, if carried, would be to put pressure on the Arbitrators? He thought it better that that pressure should be faced now. Surely they had some right to expect that such cases should be assisted by Irish generosity and local organisation.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the object of the Amendment was to extend the limit of £50 in all cases, but that was not their intention. They knew there were some cases in which £50 would not be sufficient; but he thought, bearing in mind that in other cases so much under £50 would suffice, they might in a few cases allow the limit to be extended beyond £50.
    SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANwas understood to suggest to hon. Members from Ireland that the extension of the limit beyond £50 would seriously restrict the chances of dealing with the claims of the general body of tenants.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 54.—(Division List, No. 207.)
    Clause 5.
    On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 4, line 2, leave out, "one hundred," and insert "two hundred and fifty."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. J. MORLEYmoved, in page 4, line 16, after the word "say," to insert—
    "Piers Francis White, one of Her Majesty's Counsel in Dublin; George Fottrell, solicitor, Clerk of the Crown for the County and City of Dublin; and Edward Greer, solicitor and legal Assistant Commissioner to the Irish Land Commission."
    He said, the Arbitrators would have power to make their own rules as to the form of their procedure.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    DR. KENNYmoved an Amendment to omit the second paragraph of Subsection 4, which provides that, subject to the regulations of the Treasury, the Arbitrators should employ the examiners and valuers of the Land Commission in carrying out the measure. He confessed that he felt little confidence in those officials.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out paragraph 2 of Sub-section 4.—(Dr. Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That paragraph 2 stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he certainly could not assent to the Amendment.
    MR. CLANCYasked the right hon. Gentleman to give some reason for his refusal.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that a great saving both of time and money would be secured by employing the examiners and valuers of the Land Commission. Otherwise, a very heavy charge would be incurred, and without the prospect of getting better men for the work. The matter had been carefully considered.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he recognised that expedition in applying the measure was a point of great importance; and as the appointment of other examiners and valuers might cause considerable delay, he should not support the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALYthought that, under the circumstances, the Government had adopted a reasonable course in the matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that on the Second Reading of the Bill he understood the Chief Secretary, when referring to the conduct and duties of the Arbitrators, to intimate that they might sit in private. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had thought the matter out, or spoke merely from personal impression, but he confessed that he heard the remark with some surprise, and, from such attention as he had been able to give to the question, it appeared to him that it would be most undesirable that the Arbitrators should conduct their proceedings in pri-
    1596
    vate. Considering the difficulties that might arise, and the differences that might have to be decided upon as between petitioner and respondent, he feared that, if the Arbitrators sat and discussed in private, their judgments might not be received with the confidence they ought to be—that the defeated party might, in such circumstances, easily give currency to unfair and inaccurate statements regarding the action of the Arbitrators, and thus cause much dissatisfaction.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had taken great pains to ascertain the opinion of persons of great weight and experience in Dublin on the point raised by his right hon. Friend, and their judgment was that it would be better to conduct the proceedings in private than in public, for very often in cases of this kind the publicity of the proceedings between the parties were burnished up and exaggerated by public prints, which naturally caused exasperation. He understood that in England Courts of Arbitration were almost invariably private. He reminded the Committee that as the Bill stood it would be in the discretion of the Arbitrators to hold their Court in public or in private. No doubt if they thought a case required publicity they would hear it in public. He thought the matter might be safely left to the discretion of the Arbitrators.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he thought that, in the interests of the landlords as well as of the tenants, the Arbitrators' Courts should be public. Undoubtedly there were "wastrel" tenants who did not deserve any consideration, and if a man sought the benefits of the Bill and the protection of the Court, whose disasters had been brought about simply by his own misconduct, the landlord should be able to publicly show this. There should be no ground for suspicion that the Arbitrators had been "ear-wigged" beforehand to take particular cases in private. The rule should be for the Courts to be public unless the parties desired the proceedings to be private.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that it would be impossible to keep the proceedings of the Courts private. If any attempt were made to do so, unauthorised—and perhaps incorrect—reports of what occurred would appear regularly in next day's newspapers.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the proceedings of the Courts should be public, to avoid unfounded apprehensions and suspicions. The decisions of the Court would command more public respect if given publicly. He was firmly convinced that the interests of landlords and tenants and the community would be best secured by accepting the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), whose suggestions were generally sound and well-considered.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he agreed in the argument that, generally speaking, the Arbitrators' Courts should be public.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, many authorities in Ireland were in favour of the proceedings of the Courts being private, but after the expression of opinion in the House he would further consider the matter.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7.
    MR. J. MORLEYmoved, in page 5, line 29, at end, insert—
    "The expression 'holding' means a holding as defined in The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, which is agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, in its character, unless the tenancy in such holding has been decided under The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or any Act amending or incorporating the same, to be a tenancy within the exceptions set forth in Section 58 of the said Act of 1881."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that a sub-let holding would be excluded from the scope of the Arbitrators' powers. There were a number of cases in which it had been held that where the lease of a farm contained a covenant that the tenant should give up five acres if the landlord required it for a church or for cottages, and that covenant had been acted upon, the holding would be excluded from the benefits of the Land Act. The Government proposed to import into this Bill all the decisions disqualifying tenants from availing themselves of the provisions of the Land Acts, and to make the evicted tenants the victims of those decisions. It seemed to him that the Amendment, if adopted in its present form, would absolutely stereotype eviction. It seemed to him that, whoever advised the Government to bring in this Amend-
    1598
    ment, had taken a most unwise course. It was because the Land Act had not been sufficiently general in its application all over Ireland that so many evictions had taken place, and yet it was proposed to exclude from the provisions of this Bill every tenant who had not had the benefit of the Land Act. The result of adopting the Amendment would in his judgment be that every tenant who was excluded from the Acts of 1881 and 1887 as a result of the decisions to which he had alluded would be now held to be incapable of getting the benefit of the Arrears Act, and would practically be regarded as an outlaw from an agrarian point of view.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, this was a very difficult and complicated matter, and he doubted whether the precise effect of the phrases used in the Amendment was within the comprehension of any layman; but he had given them the best consideration in his power, and he thought they were open to comment. The definition of a "holding" in the Land Act of 1881 was "a parcel of land," and the Solicitor General (Sir R. Reid) said that a parcel of land might be held to denote a house. If this was the difficulty to be cured, it could be cured by a less elaborate definition. He feared that the introduction of this definition might have serious consequences in the case of some tenants who would otherwise be entitled to re-admission under the Bill. There were two questions which ought to be kept separate: The first was, as to what tenants had a right to re-instatement? That was a question very proper for the Arbitrators to consider. The second was, what was the legal status of a tenant in regard to a fair rent? This was a subject which need not be treated before the re-admission of the tenant, but might be dealt with afterwards. Yesterday two Amendments were inserted in the Bill, one of them providing that the tenant after re-instatement should have the same kind of tenancy as he would have had if he had not been evicted, and the other providing as to the persons who might have their rents fixed. Under these Amendments the future tenant would be entitled to re-admission, although he never had a right to have a fair rent fixed. If the present Amendment were carried certain classes of present tenants or persons who would have been

    1599
    present tenants if they had not been evicted would be placed in a worse position under this Bill than that which the future tenant would occupy. The closing words of the Amendment were—
    "unless the tenancy in such holding has been decided under The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or any Act amending or incorporating the same, to be a tenancy within the exceptions set forth in Section 58 of the said Act of 1881."
    The exceptions of Section 58 did not apply at all to the future tenant, because they only related to the fixing of fair rent. When the present tenant came forward it would be considered whether he was a person entitled to have a fair rent fixed. The Arbitrators would be obliged, owing to the wording of this Amendment, to decide against a man who might otherwise have a fair rent fixed. This, he thought, was a conclusive reason against the insertion of the latter part of the Amendment. Of course, it was clear enough that the Bill intended that the man to be restored to his holding was to be a farmer and not a townsman; but if the Legislature laid on the Arbitrators a strict obligation to say whether the holding was agricultural or pastoral, it laid upon them the duty of deciding a most complicated legal question. If the decision were given against the landlord, he might set the law in operation against them on the ground that they had decided a question of law against the true meaning of the law. The difficulty would be got over if the Amendment were so altered as to make the opinion of the Arbitrators on the subject final and if the second part of it were left out.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, this was a purely legal question. It was contended that the words proposed by the Government might have the effect of narrowing the possibility of reinstatement, thereby excluding some of those cases which had been already decided, and putting the evicted tenant in a worse position than the future tenant. That certainly was the intention of the Government; but as the questions had been raised, he would not ask the Committee to accept the Amendment at the present stage, but would suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should assist him to get words which would be unobjectionable. It was, of course, a mere question of legal definition.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 8.
    SIR A. HAYTERsuggested that the short title of the Bill should be altered to "Restoration of Tenants (Arbitration) Bill." The Bill dealt with other tenants besides those who had been evicted, and he thought it would be better to omit the word "Evicted."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Evicted," in order to insert the words "Restoration of."—(Sir A. Hayter.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Evicted' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that the short title of the Bill could be altered in the Office without the intervention of the House.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that was not the case. If it were thought needful to alter the short title, it must be done in Committee.
    MR. SEXTONobserved that in his opinion the best title would be "Former Tenants (Arbitration) Bill."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not see why we should not make the short title "Tenants Arbitration (Ireland) Bill."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, after "arbitration" to insert ("Ireland").—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question, "That ('Ireland') be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR R. T. REIDmoved, in page 5, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—
    (Application of Act.)

    "(1) Where it appears to the Arbitrators that the tenancy in a holding is held for the landlord, or that a person is in occupation of the holding as the nominee of the landlord, they shall deal with the tenancy, and this Act shall apply in like manner as if the tenancy had been determined and the holding were in the occupation of the landlord.

    (2) Where it appears to the Arbitrators that part of a holding is in the occupation of the landlord and part in the occupation of a new tenant, they shall deal with each part, and this

    1601
    Act shall apply in like manner as if it were a separate holding, and the former rent of each part were such portion of the former rent of the whole holding of the Arbitrators fix."

    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that the case of a letting for temporary convenience had been omitted. It seemed to him absolutely necessary that a mere letting for temporary convenience should not exclude the action of the Arbitrators, and he would, therefore, move that there should be inserted after the second "landlord" in Sub-section 1,
    "or that a letting has been made for temporary convenience by the Land Judges' Court or otherwise."
    It had always been held, since Mr. Justice Butt gave his famous opinion, that all lettings by the Land Court were for temporary convenience. They came to an end the moment the holding was sold, and at the longest they could only last for seven years. The Act of 1887 enabled a tenancy to be broken by other means than that of shelving him out. The tenant had six months in which to redeem, and frequently the landlord made a letting for temporary convenience. As it was in the option of the landlord still to avail of that old process where the value was over £100, the mere letting for six months during which the redemption might be running would exclude the action of the Arbitrators. It seemed necessary, therefore, that some provision in the case of lettings made for temporary convenience on these evicted farms should be provided for.
    Question, "That this Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, in line 3, after the word "landlord," to insert the words—
    "or that the letting has been made for temporary convenience by the Land Judges' Court or otherwise."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed new Clause."
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, the object of the hon. and learned Member was to prevent the compulsory powers of the
    1602
    Act being made nugatory by the fact that the landlord had let the holding for "temporary convenience."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is the expression used in the Land Act.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that no doubt that might be a legal term in Ireland, but it was not in this country. It was to be presumed that the hon. Gentleman meant by "a letting for temporary convenience" some arrangement which did not create a tenancy. It was obvious that it was not intended that such an arrangement should prevent the compulsory powers of the Act coming into force. He thought that a temporary letting would amount to the landlord being in occupation, and, if that were so, the Amendment would not be necessary. At any rate, it was impossible, on the spur of the moment, to accept an Amendment of this character. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought there was room for doubt he would consider the matter before Report.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the law in Ireland was rather different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman had outlined. Letting for a man's whole life in Ireland had been held to be a letting for temporary convenience. It was, therefore, necessary to be rather guarded in these matters. There was something to be considered why they should not insert the words "letting for temporary convenience," leaving the other questions to a later stage of the Bill. He hoped the Government would see their way to accepting those words.
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, he supposed what the hon. Gentleman meant by the words was some arrangement which did not create a tenancy. It was obvious that it was not intended that such an arrangement should prevent the compulsory powers of the Act coming into force. He thought that that would amount to a case of the landlord being in occupation, and, if that were so, the Amendment would not be necessary. It was impossible on the spur of the moment to accept an Amendment of this character; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was not clear it should be made clear upon Report.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would accept the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONthought some change was necessary in the language of the second paragraph, because in the fourth line of that paragraph the word "it" was ambiguous, and he would therefore move to omit the word "it," and insert the words "each part."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. CLANCYmoved the following clause standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. Harrington):—
    (Voluntary agreements.)
    "If within one year of the passing of this Act a joint petition with respect to any tenancy of a holding described in Section 1 of this Act be presented to the Arbitrators by the landlord and the former tenant, or by the landlord, former tenant, and new tenant, showing that since the passing of this Act a voluntary agreement has been entered into between the parties by which the former tenant is reinstated in the holding, the Arbitrators may give to the parties respectively such terms as to arrears of rent, compensation, and grant for building as they are empowered to do by this Act in the case of a petition by the former tenant."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. J. MORLEY: As I understand it, the clause which my hon. and learned Friend moves is that wherever the landlord, former tenant, and the new tenant agree, or, in case there should be no new tenant, the landlord and the old tenant may come to an agreement reinstating the former tenant in the holding, then the arbitrator may give to the parties respectively—that is to say, the landlord and the new tenant, if there be one—such terms as to arrears of rent, compensation, and grant for building as they are empowered to do by this Act in the case of a petition by the former tenant—that is to say, the voluntary agreement between the parties would give them the benefit of this Act. No doubt that would facilitate the question, but one would have to be quite sure, and the Arbitrators would have to have full powers left them to enable them to make quite sure there was nothing like collusion—that these were
    1604
    bonâ fide cases; otherwise, of course, the purposes of the Act would be frustrated. Unless we find it necessary to insert other words, which we may find it necessary to do afterwards, I think there are objections to the clause.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he was free to admit that collusion and fraud should be prevented, and if the right hon. Gentleman had any words to insert to make it plain he should be glad to accept them.
    SIR A. ROLLITthought that all would approve of the principle of this clause, which was to facilitate voluntary arrangements; but it appeared to him, as drawn, to be open to another objection which was more serious than the one that had been raised—namely, that this course could be taken by the Commissioners, not on the petition, as in the Bill, of the landlord and the former and the new tenant, but, by the wording of the clause, by the landlord and the former tenant only, and that would exclude the new tenant. He would therefore suggest that at the end of the third line, after "former tenant," they should insert the words—
    "or if there be a new tenant, then by the landlord, former tenant, and new tenant."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think the object we have in view is the same. If the hon. and learned Member will withdraw this clause we will undertake to bring up a clause in our own words which, while meeting the wishes of the hon. and learned Member, will be less open to objection.
    MR. SEXTONthought it was necessary to provide against fraud and collusion, and he also thought it would be necessary to provide that the former tenant should be a person out of occupation at the time of the passing of the Act.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he wished the Government also to consider before the Report stage this further point. There might be such a case that the landlord and the new tenant objected, and therefore the old tenant would be debarred from all hope; but the new tenant might be willing, if he got some sum which otherwise the landlord or the new tenant would get, to depart and surrender all his claims in the holding. It seemed to him that peace might be

    1605
    preserved by this means, and that it would be very desirable both in the interests of the landlord and the old tenant. Where the landlord objected and the new tenant objected, then apparently the former tenant would take no benefit under this Bill, and therefore he thought there was a necessity for provision to be made and a warning given to the former tenant, if he were willing to surrender his claims, which might not be very large, on the holding, if such a case arose, he might be entitled to be awarded such sum as, had the landlord and the new tenant acceded to the petition, they would have got in his place. He hoped in the interests of peace that upon Report the Government might be able to do this.
    MR. J. MORLEYmoved—
    Title, page 1, leave out "of evicted tenants to their holdings in Ireland," and insert "to their holdings in Ireland of certain former tenants or their personal representatives."
    MR. SEXTONthought that the word "their" before "holdings" might cause some difficulty. They had ceased to be the tenants, and the holdings were no longer theirs; therefore, he thought it would be better to omit the word "their."
    MR. J. MORLEY: We considered that point, and came to the conclusion that it was better as we have proposed it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 346.]

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 246.)
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, considered.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), he should like to ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill whether he had considered the new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member, as there seemed to be a good deal to be said for it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman can move his own clause, but he cannot move the clause standing in the name of another hon. Gentleman.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, in that case he would move the clause standing in his own name, and which was as follows:—
  (Provisions as to money borrowed in excess of borrowing powers.)

  "(1) Where any sum has been borrowed by a Building Society by receiving loans, deposits, or otherwise, and the sum would be recoverable from the Society, if in borrowing the sum the Society had not exceeded the limits of borrowing fixed by its Rules or by the principal Act, that sum shall be recoverable from the Society, notwithstanding that the limits of borrowing has has been exceeded.

  (2) Where any sum has been so borrowed by a Building Society in excess of the limits fixed by its rules or by the principal Act, those persons who were Directors of the Society when that sum was borrowed shall be jointly and severally liable to pay an amount equal to that sum to the Society."

  The object of the clause was that where a Building Society had taken money beyond the limits of its powers the officials who were primarily to blame and not the innocent depositors should be made to suffer. It was very hard that a depositor who could not possibly ascertain whether the Society had exceeded its limits should lose his money if these limits had been exceeded and that the shareholders should get the benefit of it. And this was not an imaginary case. It had been held that in the case of a lady, who had deposited £800 in the Portsea Island Building Society, that as the amount was in excess of that which the Society was entitled to receive she must lose it, and that the shareholders must get the benefit of it. There were many other similar cases. It seemed to him that this was reversing the usual order of things, and giving shareholders a prior claim over depositors. He did not propose this clause in the interest of bankers. The Building Societies Association, of which he was President, thought it was not only prejudicial to their interests, but very hard upon depositors, that an anomaly of this kind should be permitted; and though they were primarily interested in the shareholders, they did not wish the shareholders to receive an advantage to which they were not fairly entitled.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  COLONEL HUGHESthought this clause moved by the right hon. Baronet was necessary. In the Second Schedule of the Bill it was proposed to repeal the existing law which

  1607
  made the Directors responsible if they took on loan more than two-thirds of their borrowing powers. He wished to know what was to be put in the Bill in lieu of the words which were to be repealed? Unless this clause was passed it gave to the depositor whose money had been taken wrongfully in excess of the borrowing powers no remedy against anybody whatever, and that was a very serious matter indeed. The object of the Bill was to strengthen the position of the depositors; and even if these words were not taken out of the Building Societies Act of 1874, it would still be a very desirable improvement, that the remedy of the depositor whose money had been wrongfully taken should be against the Society which had the benefit of the money. At the present moment each individual depositor, seeking to recover a deposit, must sue the Directors, who were in default, and go to the trouble of ascertaining which of the Directors was in default. He knew a case in which a liquidator was applied to for information as to the state of the deposit account at the time his money was lent to the Society, and the liquidator would not give that information in order that the depositor might bring his action, except on payment of some £10 or £15 for a copy of the accounts showing the position of the Society at the time the deposit was made, so that under the present law a depositor had considerable difficulty in recovering that which the law said he had a right to recover. The right hon. Baronet's new clause was to give the depositor so placed the right to go against the Society which had had his money, and the Society had a claim on the Directors for any breach of trust they had committed. In this way hundreds of actions would be saved. This was a highly technical subject, though he understood it, or at all events he had had 40 years' experience with regard to Building Societies, and therefore the House would perhaps excuse him for endeavouring to explain his view. He very much regretted that it was intended to repeal the existing rights of depositors to proceed against the Directors.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,)said, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the repeal of the existing law required attention.
  1608
  He thought there had been some oversight, and he would undertake that the matter should receive consideration either when the Schedule was reached or when the Bill reached another place. The Government, however, could not accept the proposed clause. It would have a direct tendency to increase the existing borrowing powers of Building Societies, and he thought these powers were already sufficiently ample. The clause would, in addition, introduce an anomalous exception into the general law, which provided that where the Directors of a Corporate Body acted ultra vires the consequences of that Act should not rest upon the Society. It was true that the clause gave the Society power to proceed against the Directors; but the class of Directors most likely to break the law were in many cases men of straw, and the burden would therefore fall entirely upon the Society.
  MR. BARTLEYcould not agree with his right hon. Friend. Many of the misfortunes and difficulties into which these Societies got were owing to their having the power of practically unlimited borrowing. He thought that a Society ought not to borrow so close to its margin as to run any possible risk of getting into difficulties. From their inquiries in the Committee it was quite obvious this was a great danger that ought to be avoided. He should support the Government in resisting the proposed alteration.
  MR. CLOUGHexpressed surprise at the observations of the hon. Member, as the Societies under the existing law could only borrow up to two-thirds.
  MR. BANBURYpointed out that under the clause of the right hon. Baronet the existing law would practically be abolished, and that a Society would virtually be able to borrow any amount of money; because, as the Society would be liable to the lender, whether the borrowing powers were exceeded or not, the lender would be under no inducement to inquire whether or not the Society were exceeding their powers in taking his money, and, therefore, the existing limit would practically be swept away.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, if this Amendment was passed the limit would be practically

  1609
  swept away with regard to borrowing powers. To sweep away the present limit to the borrowing powers of Building Societies would be a very dangerous change to make. He did not see why the members of and investors in Building Societies should be liable for debts, perhaps improperly incurred, if the limit hitherto imposed were no longer to be a reality. The right hon. Gentleman laid the principal stress of his case upon the hardship to depositors; but the reason he would urge for rejecting the Amendment was, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, that Building Societies in a practically insolvent condition would be able to go to banks or financial establishments and obtain assistance beyond their real borrowing powers. If such loans were not repayable by the Societies it was quite certain that bankers and other lenders would be very careful in making advances. The danger of the Amendment would far more than counteract any advantage which could flow from it.
  MR. BYLESsaid, the hardship which presented itself to his mind was recently exemplified in the case of a Society which, with a share capital of £5,000, and liabilities on deposits and loans nearly £50,000, had assets of not much more than £10,000; so that depositors after the Society's borrowing powers had been exceeded had no claim whatever. That was a matter which required alteration.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, in his opinion the Amendment would be productive of more mischief than good. The liabilities of Building Societies were of three kinds: first came depositors entitled to a first claim; then the investors; and then borrowers who might be liable under the Rules of the Society to make good losses incurred. If this Amendment were adopted the result would not be the protection of the poor members of Industrial Societies which, having borrowed up to their limits, were in difficulties, and might obtain from their bankers £50,000, which would come in priority to the investors, the poorest class of members. That was an objection to the proposal. Such cases had been few, simply because of the difficulty of knowing whether Societies were not exceeding their borrowing powers. The matter had been most carefully considered
  1610
  by the Committee upstairs with a result unfavourable to the course proposed by the Amendment, and he trusted that it would not be adopted now.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BANBURYmoved the insertion of a new clause providing that gifts or commissions not recognised by the Rules of a Society should not be accepted by its officials. Building Societies were particularly liable to offences of that kind, and the very nature of the offence made it very difficult to obtain any direct evidence of the practice. The prevalence of such practices was, however, brought prominently before the Committee last year, particularly by a former Vice Chairman of the County Council of Monmouthshire and chartered accountant, a witness of ability, and with 25 years' experience in Building Society affairs, who said with reference to over-advances that they arose from two causes: one, want of knowledge of the value of property; and the other, the payment of money to persons reporting upon the advances. That witness added that in one case he had good reason to believe £50 was paid to a Society's surveyor who went to report upon a property. One of the chief causes of Building Society failures was found in over-advances, and in view of that fact it was very desirable that no gifts should be accepted by Building Society officials, who were sometimes induced by receiving "tips" or commissions to enhance the value of properties. The Amendment would do no harm to officials acting honestly.
  New Clause—
  (Gifts, &c., not to be accepted by officials.)
  "No director, secretary, surveyor, solicitor, or other officer of a Building Society shall, in addition to the recognised remuneration attached to his office, receive from any other person any gift, bonus, commission, or benefit, for or in connection with any loan made by the Society, and any person paying or accepting any such gift, bonus, commission, or benefit shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of £50 with costs, and, in default of payment, to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any time not exceeding six months, and the persons accepting any such gift, bonus, commission, or benefit, shall be ordered to pay over to the Society the amount or value of such gift, bonus, commission, or benefit, and in default of payment shall be liable

  1611
  to be imprisoned-with or without hard labour for any time not exceeding six months."—(Mr. Banbury.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, this clause should be made not only to apply to Building Societies, but to other Institutions. Officials ought always to be paid fairly according to scale, and great risk was run by winking at underhand payments. His hon. Friend had mentioned a case which came before the Committee. It was notorious that in connection with the operations of the Liberator Society large commissions were paid. They ought, if it was possible, to put a stop to the practice of giving douceurs. When it was known that commissions would be paid, the whole staff of a Society was apt to become demoralised, and these gifts undoubtedly encouraged fraud. There was no idea of fraud probably in the first instance when douceurs were given, but fraud was apt to creep in, and it was far better that a clause should be inserted to stop all proceedings as absolutely illegal. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be agreed to.
  MR. HOPWOODhoped that the Government would not accept the clause. No one thought it wrong to receive presents in other positions, but such a practice was described as unbecoming in the lowly condition of persons attached to Building Societies, though almost universal in business classes. If such an Amendment was adopted in one direction only, a new precedent would be created from that moment. He could not see the justice of that, and such a clause would require more consideration before being adopted into the Criminal Code of the country. It should certainly be necessary to show something beyond the mere act of receiving money, which might, under certain circumstances, be given in all honesty.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, it was difficult to see how there could be any objection to the clause or that the officers of Building Societies would feel themselves specially attacked by it. A similar provision was passed a few years ago
  1612
  applying to all Local Authorities, and, at all events, it would not hurt any honest person.
  MR. WARMINGTONsaid, if persons received anything in addition to their fees they would probably be liable to account for it under the present law. At the same time, those who were familiar with Building Societies could not shut their eyes to the fact that a great deal of harm had arisen in consequence of the officials of such Associations receiving something in addition to their official remuneration, with the result that loans had undoubtedly in my cases been improperly made. He therefore supported the clause.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he was prepared to adopt the principle of the clause, and would take care that words were introduced into the Bill at a convenient opportunity to carry out the object of the clause.
  MR. CLOUGHthought that where an official accepted a bribe he ought not to be permitted to get off with a mere fine. There ought not only to be no question of his handing over or repaying the money, but he ought to be punished.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added—
  MR. HOPWOODmoved the insertion of a clause providing that upon charges arising under this Act the defendant and his wife should be admissible as wit nesses. This followed what had been done in other cases. The clause was not compulsory. The defendant and his wife would not be compellable to give evidence; but it was right that a defendant should be furnished with every means of bringing out the truth in a Court of Justice, and he or his wife might be cognisant of many circumstances with regard to books and other matters.
  New Clause—
  (Wife may be witness in certain cases.)
  "Upon hearing of any charge involving the infliction of fine or imprisonment on summary conviction under this Act the defendant and his wife shall be admissible as competent witnesses."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,), was willing to accept the clause. Some of the offences provided against in the Bill would not admit of much testimony being given in defence beyond that of the persons charged. There might well be matters as to which no one could have knowledge but the defendant himself. The Amendment, therefore, seems reasonable and in accordance with recent precedents.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added.
  MR. CREMERmoved a clause providing that the Registrar's certificate appended to the Rules should be accompanied by a statement that it was not to be taken as a guarantee of the Society's financial stability or of its good management. The majority of persons who joined Building and Friendly Societies, when they saw the Registrar's certificate appended to the rules, were led to believe that it constituted a State guarantee of the financial soundness of the concern, and then when a disaster occurred confidence in Governments was shaken, if not destroyed. Of course, Members of the House knew that the certificate of the Registrar did not afford any guarantee of stability, but the public too often interpreted it otherwise, hence the necessity for making it clear. He believed there was no honestly-conducted Building Society that had any objection to the change which would be effected by the clause which he proposed.
  New Clause—
  (Registrar's certificates not to be a guarantee of financial stability.)
  "In any case where the rules of any Building Society shall have been deposited with the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the certificate of such Registrar shall have been appended thereto, such certificate shall bear on its face the statement that it shall not be taken as a guarantee of good management or financial stability."—(Mr. Cremer.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he fully endorsed what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken, and to
  1614
  avoid the possibility of the public being misled the Amendment was desirable.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEpromised, on the part of the Government, that words carrying out the principle of the clause should be introduced into the Bill in another place. It would, however, be better to carry out the hon. Member's intention by amending the Schedule of the Act of 1876, which defined the form of certificate.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, it would be better to accept the clause, as these Societies would then all be bound to satisfy those concerned with regard to their position and stability. It was therefore desirable that this clause should be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. HOPWOODopposed the Amendment, and submitted that the House would be sanctioning a very foolish arrangement in allowing such a certificate to be given. What could possibly be the effect of it on the mind of the investor? When they had appointed a Registrar to whom all the extraordinary powers he now possessed were given, and who appended his certificate to the rules of a Building Society, it was impossible to say this was not, in a sense, a State guarantee that they were under good management.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURremarked that the certificate only applied to the rules of the Building Society. How was it possible that the mere fact of a Building Society being registered could be any security for its good management or financial stability? The real reason why some Amendment of this kind was needed was that experience had proved that the mere fact of Societies having such certificate had been taken again and again, by members of the Society, to be a guarantee by the Government of good management and financial stability, whereas it was obviously impossible the Government should give such guarantee or that the certificate could bear that meaning. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hopwood) seemed to hold the opinion that we were living in an unreal world, and that punishment and precautions were unnecessary, but the majority of people would not agree with him in that opinion. He was glad that the Government intended to accept the principle of the Amendment and to give effect to it in another place. The only

  1615
  question was whether the proposed certificate should apply to all Societies or only to new Societies. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give them some idea as to what his views were.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: It is proposed to be extended to all Societies according to the new clause.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is only to new Societies.
  MR. JACKSONthought everybody would agree in the desirability of carrying out what was designed by this new clause in regard to the certificate, except the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hop-wood). In arranging this matter, however, care would have to be taken that there was not one certificate for one lot of Societies and another for another class of Societies. Take the case of an old Society which had its present certificate. That would never come before the Registrar except in the case of an alteration of the Rules, and therefore they might have a large number of Societies—which for years and years would not need to come to the Registrar's office for an alteration of the Rules—with one certificate, and they might have all other Societies, either newly formed or coming for an alteration of the Rules, with a different certificate. That would obviously not be what the hon. Member desired, because it would place at a disadvantage the new Societies or even the old Societies which made any alteration in their Rules. This was a serious difficulty which ought to be obviated.
  MR. BANBURYconsidered that all Societies must be put on the same footing, and he thought that it would be easy to draw up a clause which would compel all existing Societies to send in their certificates for revision.
  MR. BYLESsaid, his hon. and learned Friend near him (Mr. Hopwood) was not entirely alone in the views he expressed. He firmly believed the effect of these restrictions and restraints upon the operations of Building Societies would most inevitably be to increase the fallacious belief of the general public that there was some sort of Government guarantee for their money when they put it into such Societies, and when they were entrusting the Registrar with all these new powers they simply furthered and gave colour to that erroneous opinion. He agreed it was desirable, as far as they
  1616
  could, to state on the face of the Bill that it did not carry any guarantee, and so far he agreed with the clause, but he was bound to say he thought his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly right in saying the tendency of all this legislation would be to increase that wrong opinion. If the public were only left to make their own bargains when they lent their money, just as they had to do with anybody else, they would be more likely to be careful.
  MR. WHITTAKERremarked that, if some certificates contained a statement that they carried no guarantee, while others did not contain that statement, it would lead to the belief that the latter did really carry some guarantee.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, the Government would keep in view the points referred to when drawing the clause for insertion in another place.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL HUGHESmoved, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "unadvanced," and insert "investing." He said, that "investing" was a modern term, and would be better understood than the word "unadvanced."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "unadvanced," and insert the word "investing."—(Colonel Hughes.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'unadvanced' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he was advised that it would be inconvenient to accept the Amendment, as the word "unadvanced" ran all through the former Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HOPWOODmoved, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from "members," to end of sub-section. The words proposed to be omitted were those which provided that the matters to be set forth in the Rules should include
  "Tables, where applicable in the opinion of the Registrar, showing the amount due for principal and interest separately."
  His reasons for moving the Amendment were these. They introduced here, and in this Bill generally, the Registrar for

  1617
  the first time as a controlling power, and the Building Societies over which he exercised such supervision would be regarded as having a State guarantee. He suggested that that was a mistake. The Registrar was here invested with a discretion "where applicable in the opinion of the Registrar." The Registrar, he believed, was not desirous of having this jurisdiction put upon him, or he so expressed himself in his evidence. This would throw a good deal of extra work on the Registrar, and must entail an increase of his staff. Again, he should like to know why the Registrar was to govern the modus vivendi of these Societies, which the House must suppose would be financed by people who knew their own business. He did not think they would learn anything profitable from the Registrar, who confessed that he knew nothing practically about the business of these Societies. He submitted, therefore, the House should pause before they arrived at the conclusion that they were so much cleverer than these people, and that they could settle in an Act of Parliament, fixing the language for all time, what should be done. Without injuring the clause, but preserving all that was essential in it, the words he suggested should be omitted ought to be taken out, so that Building Societies should be left in that respect to do what they thought was right for the independent government of their concerns. The more they controlled these Societies, the more they prevented their usefulness; and although some of them had been dishonestly managed, they formed but a very small percentage of the whole. They would lead the public into a feeling of false security if they led them to believe that they had got a Registrar on the spot who was always looking into these matters, and always taking into consideration the interest of Her Majesty's subjects. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word "members," to the end of Sub-section (b), of Clause 1.—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Question proposed, "That the words, 'with tables, where applicable in the opinion of the Registrar' stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, that in any well-managed Society, with definite regulations, there was no difficulty in setting forth a table to meet every case of investment or advance, and nothing could conduce more to the popularity of a Building Society than that the particulars of the contract should be set forth in the Rules. It was a distinct advantage to have these tables in the Rules. They were set forth in the Rules of the Society to which he belonged, and they worked with great benefit to the Society. He pointed out that this was not obligatory upon a Society. If the Registrar was satisfied that the tables were not applicable to be put in the Rules of some Societies they would not be put in. If he thought they ought and could be put in then he would direct they should be put in. Such a provision was desirable in the interests of the Societies themselves and everyone concerned.
  MR. BYLESwas astonished to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say it was necessary and desirable there should be these tables. Was he aware that in some of the biggest, most prosperous, and well-managed Societies they had no tables at all?
  COLONEL HUGHES: The officials must have a table to work by themselves.
  MR. BYLESsaid, they had no table, but they worked freely, with elasticity and in the spirit that had been expressed by the Mover of the Amendment. The whole idea of this Bill was that there was one certain sort of Building Society and that they could make them all alike in their methods and management. The real advantage to the public was that Building Societies should be as elastic and free as possible, and thus the public got the maximum advantage. He heartily supported the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURobserved that the hon. Member for Shipley had said that the House appeared to be under the impression that Building Societies were all of one kind. How could he say that in face of the words the hon. Member for Middleton proposed to omit and which set forth that the Rules should only be published where they were applicable in the opinion of the Registrar? The Registrar would not insist upon the tables where, in his judgment, they were not applicable, but would insist upon

  1619
  them in these cases where they were really required. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment seemed to fall into an obvious error. His view was, as a matter of fact, that all Societies differed from one another, and ought to be left in that condition. Nothing of the kind. The fact was, that Building Societies fell into well - marked classes—Terminable Annuity Societies and those which were not. It was abundantly proved before the Select Committee that the Societies which conducted their business on the principle of Terminable Annuities absolutely required tables to work by. It was, therefore, eminently desirable that those tables should be inserted in the Rules. All that was required here was that if the tables should be given they should be duly set forth. The hon. and learned Gentleman said if this Regulation were inserted in the Bill it would give the public an impression of false security. If that were the case he was at a loss to understand how it was the hon. Gentleman opposed the new clause lately moved, in which the precaution was taken, on the face of the certificate, to show that no such guarantee was given. All the certificate could possibly do was to show that the Rules had been drawn up in accordance with the law and nothing more. It was the object of the Bill to see that the Rules of a Society were so drawn up as would be most likely to ensure that good management and financial stability they all desired to see in their Building Societies.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, there was no doubt that the preponderance of the best opinion examined by the Select Committee was in favour of the insertion of the tables, in order that the investing public should know distinctly the basis of the bargain made. A great number of witnesses stated strongly that these tables should be absolutely made the law in every Society, and the only real objection was in the case of some small Societies, where the cost of printing would be very great. There was something in that, but it really was a very unimportant point indeed. His own opinion was that a Society which could not afford to print the Rules was not likely to be much of a Society at all. The tables were practically alike, and there would be no possible difficulty in pre-
  1620
  paring a table from some other Society without incurring much expense. It seemed to him absolutely necessary that every point in these Societies should be as plain as possible to the investing public. It was their absolute duty, if they had any special laws for these Societies, to see that they were as explicit as they possibly could be made. The provision in the clause was fair and reasonable; it was one to which no bonâ fide Society could possibly object, and the Government would fail in their duty if they did not insist upon its retention.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he would have been more impressed with the necessity for the Amendment if it had come from any of the Representatives of Building Societies. The right hon. Member for the University of London, who represented an Association comprising a great number of managers of Building Societies had not put down an Amendment of this kind, and he was not there to support the hon. and learned Member. Though it was true that there was a considerable difference of practice among Building Societies, he believed everyone would admit that where tables were possible it was most desirable to insert them in the Rules. He thought his hon. Friend was wrong in alluding as he did to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, because, in answer to a question put by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds, the Registrar said that it was certainly desirable to insert the tables. The clause as it stood was a necessary and a good clause, and he could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On Motion of Colonel HUGHES, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 1, line 14, after "due," insert "by the Society."
  Page 1, line 17, after "due," insert "by the Society."
  COLONEL HUGHESmoved, in page 1, lines 26 and 27, leave out "on redemption," and insert "after each stipulated payment." He said this was a necessary corollary to the tables being published.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HOPWOODmoved, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "relates," to "every," in line 10. The clause provided that there should be an annual account and statement made up to the end of the year. That might be a very proper provision, but the clause proceeded,
  "and shall be in such form as the Registrar may from time to time, with the approval of the Secretary of State, direct, either generally or with respect to any Society or class of Society,"
  and it was to those words that he objected. A few minutes ago the House was for relying on the Registrar in all emergencies; he was to put everything in order; but now it was proposed that the Registrar should call in the aid of the Secretary of State, who was already overburdened with duties. He was not opposing the Bill; he was giving to the House the opinions of many of the Building Societies; and on their behalf he moved the omission of words which he thought would place the Building Societies in swaddling clothes.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from the word "relates," to the word "every," in line 10.—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as the Registrar may from time to time, with the approval of a' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The whole question of Building Societies was gone into most carefully by the Select Committee last year, and the Bill was framed on the evidence, which would be found in a substantial Blue Book. He quite admitted the title of his hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment to describe himself as the mouthpiece of individual Building Societies; but it was a significant fact, and his right hon. Friend the Member for London University, who was President of an Association representing 120 Building Societies and invested funds amounting to £25,000,000, did not support the Amendment. The words "with the approval of the Secretary of State" were inserted in the clause, on the representation of witnesses on behalf of the Building Society, in order to give the public a greater feeling of security,
  1622
  and not because there was any feeling that the Registrar would not be competent to discharge the duty. He was certain that the most capable gentleman who held the office of Chief Registrar could be fully trusted to consider the case of each Society on its merits, and to decide the matter according to the character and special circumstances of the Society.
  MR. JACKSONhoped the House would not accept the Amendment. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it rather failed to appreciate the reasons why the clause was drawn in its present form. The hon. and learned Gentleman must admit that there must be some form of accounts which those Building Societies were to furnish to the Registrar. That being so, there were two alternatives. One was to prescribe a fixed form; the other was to leave some elasticity in the matter. The Committee were of opinion that it would be very difficult to prescribe a form of account which would be applicable to every class of Society; and for all future time. In order, therefore, to preserve some elasticity, and avoid a rigid form of account, the Select Committee thought it well to leave it to the discretion of the Registrar to alter the form of account from time to time, as he thought necessary, and with the sanction of the Secretary of State.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that the clause would not be placing the Societies in swaddling clothes, as the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment had remarked, because similar Rules applied to Assurance Societies, railways, banks, and such public Companies which were obliged to make Returns of this nature. No doubt, if we lived in a state of primitive simplicity and perfect honesty no Rules of the kind would be required; but considering the weakness of human nature it was not at all unreasonable that some such Rule should be made to apply to Building Societies. The Committee took great care to prevent any hardship arising from those Returns. It was felt that circumstances might arise which would render a different form of certificate necessary, and so the Registrar was given discretion to modify it when necessary. The Secretary of State would not be continually troubled to make alterations in the form of account. The form

  1623
  would last a long time, but it was conceivable that circumstances might arise when it would be necessary to alter it, and it was well to provide for such a contingency. If there had been such a power vested in a Registrar, and he was able to put some particular form of Return before the Liberator Building Societies, it was quite certain that some of the great disasters which followed the collapse of that Society would have been avoided. One of the objects of the clause was to prevent cases of fraud of that kind, for experience proved that fraud was prevented when definite and express Returns were insisted on.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL HUGHESasked, who was the Secretary of State to which the words "Secretary of State" in the clause applied? Was it the Secretary of State for the Navy or for the Army? He presumed it was the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he thought that should be clearly stated in the Bill.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, the words generally used in Acts of Parliament were "one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State." He did not think it was usual to limit it to any one Secretary of State, though the matter was always referred to the proper Secretary of State, who in this case was the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKmoved, in page 2, line 10, before "provided," to insert—
  "The form of annual account and statement directed by the Registrar under this section, and every alteration of that form, shall as soon as practicable be laid before each House of Parliament, and shall not come into operation until the expiration of three months from that date."
  The Building Societies had every confidence in the present Registrar; but they thought it reasonable that if their Rules could be altered without their consent, they at any rate should have notice of the alteration, and have the opportunity of laying their views before the Registrar, and if necessary before the Secretary of State. He, therefore, hoped the House would see the reasonableness of his Amendment.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the opening of the Amendment was made to read—
  1624
  "Every form of annual account and statement prescribed for general use by the Registrar under this section,"
  the Government would accept the Amendment.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he had no objection to the alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, before the word "provided," to insert the words—
  "Every form of annual account and statement prescribed for general use by the Registrar under this section, and every alteration of that form, shall as soon as practicable be laid before each House of Parliament, and shall not come into operation until the expiration of three months from that date."—(Sir L. Lubbock.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CARSONasked whether the Registrar in England or the Registrar in Ireland would draw up the forms for Ireland? It had been suggested to him by Building Societies in Ireland that there should be a common control over the Kingdom, and that the Registrar in England should have control over the forms for Ireland.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked what was the meaning of the phrase "prescribed for general use" which the Government had inserted in the Amendment? He thought there ought to be in the clause a clear definition of the use to which the forms were intended to be put.
  MR. HOPWOODthought that the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University had in view—namely, the protection of every Building Society against capricious charges in the form of account by the Registrar—would not be affected by his Amendment, now that the general words of the Government had been accepted.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Amendment would lead to a great deal of inconvenience and confusion. He did not object to the form being laid before Parliament, but he could not conceive that anything but mischief would arise if that form was not to be available until after the expiration of three months from that date. Take the present time, for instance. Parliament would rise at the end of August, and would not meet again probably until February. That would mean that six months would elapse

  1625
  before the Registrar could lay the form on the Table of the House, and then three months more should pass before the form would come into operation. Such a delay might lead to the sheltering of transactions in a Building Society, which in the interest of the public ought to be discovered without loss of time. It seemed to him unreasonable to insist that persons like the Secretary of State and the Registrar, who would have no interest in the matter, except the public welfare, should be hampered in the way proposed in the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the Amendment would require careful consideration before it was accepted. Delay in the operation of the form might unduly be prolonged, if the latter part of the Amendment were passed. Again, in the form which the Government proposed to accept the Amendment it would apply only to every form of annual account prescribed for general use. But there were three kinds of form contemplated—a form prescribed for general use; a form prescribed for a class of Society; and a form for some particular Society. If the Amendment were passed in its present shape, the form of account to which it would apply would be the form for general use, and not the form for the use of a particular class of Society. He did not know whether that was the intention of the Government—the matter should be made quite clear. The hon. and learned Member for Middleton seemed to think that the Registrar might use this power in a malicious way against a particular Society. But it was evident that the discretion given to the Registrar to prescribe a particular form of account for a particular Society was intended to enable him, in the case of a Society carrying on a special business, to exempt that Society from the general application of the clause.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, the intention of the Government in accepting the Amendment was very much as indicated by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken—namely, to make a general rule liable, on cause shown, to be relaxed. If there was any doubt about the clearness of the clause it would be set right in another place.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, the words "prescribed for general use" were quite intelligible, following, as they did, a section which said "either generally or
  1626
  with respect to any Society, or class of Society." As to the nature of the form, it might be such as would make a Building Society disclose information of a private character. While the House took care to protect the public they should do nothing to injure the Societies, and, therefore, he thought it was well to have the form laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. BANBURYthought that, for the reason advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington, all the words after "House of Parliament" should be omitted from the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the word "Parliament" to the end of the proposed Amendment.—(Mr. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he agreed that as to the general form of accounts to be applied to all Societies those interested should have previous knowledge so as to enable them, through their Representatives in the House or in some other way, to raise necessary objection. There could not be a doubt that protection of that kind should be afforded. He was in some doubt, however, as to how the words the Government proposed to insert would be interpreted. Suppose there were half a dozen classes of Societies, some containing a large number of Societies and some very few. How would the form of account that would be applicable to the smallest class of Societies be interpreted as coming within the form of account prescribed for general use?
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that the term "general" must be taken in these matters as opposed to "particular."
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would admit that there was a little difficulty in the words selected. His (Mr. Jackson's) desire was to take care that they did not put into the clause words which might be interpreted hereafter in a sense which was not intended. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London attached great importance to the period of three months, but that certainly appeared a long time. One month, or even 40 days, would be sufficient.
  MR. BARTLEYobjected to the period of three months, for the reason that such a delay at certain seasons would frustrate the object in view.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, the ordinary course in matters of this' kind was to have the form of accounts on the Table of the House for 40 days.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that if the words in question were omitted the form of accounts would come into operation at once instead of at the expiration of three months. It would be inconvenient to wait three months, and then, if Parliament objected, allow the matter to go back. It was idle to enact that a certain form should come into operation, and then allow Parliament a kind of posterior power of review.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, the object of having the matter before Parliament would be that corrections might be made in the form if necessary. For this purpose 40 days would be sufficient, but to say it should be laid on the Table of the House after it had come into operation seemed to him to be useless.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he would be willing to accept the period of 40 days.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "three months," and Inserting the words "forty days."
  Words, as amended, inserted.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he would move to omit Sub-section (b), on the ground that if it were retained it might act as an incentive to Building Societies to keep their properties in arrear, and not take possession of them, so as not to give full particulars.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Mr. H. Gladstone.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Bill."
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BYLESsaid, he desired to move to omit Sub-section (c), which required that every annual account and statement should set forth, in the case of every mortgage to the Society where the present debt exceeded £5,000, certain particulars shown in the first part of the First Schedule. He had been com-
  1628
  municated with by a great many Building Societies of very high character, and he found that the very best experts in Building Society work—men who were most trusted and relied upon for advice—were unanimously opposed to the proposals contained in this and the next sub-section of the clause. The development of the town of Bradford, where the working classes were as well housed as in any town in the Kingdom, was in the main due to the operation of the large Building Societies. The whole community had profited by them. They had invested their money in them, and had built their houses by means of them. Now it was proposed that those Societies who were doing a beneficial and legitimate trade should make such returns as would undoubtedly deprive them of a very large and profitable portion of their business. He objected to legislation which, in endeavouring to catch those who were dishonest and fraudulent in the discharge of their duty injured, and to a great extent destroyed, not only the Societies in Bradford, but a large number of other Societies in the West Riding which were doing a similar class of business, and he was assured on authority which he could not doubt that that would be the effect of the sub-section. He quoted from a letter written to him by Mr. Binns, who had given evidence before the Committee, to the effect that the clause would practically extinguish the present large business carried on by his Society. "What," said the writer—
  "was a Society with an annual income of £600,000 a year to do? No borrower would apply, if his circumstances were liable to be discussed by Tom, Dick, and Harry, at an annual meeting."
  There were other Institutions carrying on precisely the same business who were not interfered with, and the inevitable effect of the clause would be that persons who wanted to borrow large sums of money on mortgage for a perfectly legitimate purpose would no longer go to Building Societies whose directors were members of the highest probity, and were by their character the best possible guarantee for the solvency of the Society, because their transactions would be exposed to the world; but they would go to other Institutions which escaped these restrictive conditions. Thus a useful and highly legitimate business would be

  1629
  destroyed. He, therefore, moved the omission of the sub-section.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out paragraph (c), of Subsection 1, of Clause 2.—(Mr. Byles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in the case of every mortgage to the Society,' stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, that the sub-section which it was proposed to omit was very necessary, because it had been proved by experience that Building Societies had often gone wrong by lending large sums to contractors, and when a Society lent on mortgage a sum of £5,000 and upwards it was necessary, for the protection of the shareholders, that the fact should be published. The objection raised to the sub-section was that it would compel the disclosure of business transactions; but there was nothing in the Schedule which would lead to identification of the property. If Building Societies, which were really formed for the purpose of providing their shareholders with the means of acquiring property for themselves, and in most cases for their own occupation, were to be diverted into agencies for enormous loan transactions for the building of large blocks of buildings on estates, forming doubtful security, it was necessary that the shareholders, who were of the poorest classes, should be made acquainted with the nature of the investments; and therefore where £5,000 was lent on one mortgage, it was right that the facts should be published by the Building Society.
  MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment. If Building Societies were to be left the power to lend £5,000 on a mortgage, why impose conditions which would prevent the exercise of the power? Why treat their managers as honest, and at the same time take security against dishonesty? He had been told a few minutes ago that a number of public Companies had to give accounts. He was aware of that; but no public Companies were required to render such accounts; and banks, which often went wrong, were never subjected to such degrading conditions. The proposal went beyond the due bounds of legislative interference, and he, therefore, heartily supported the Amendment.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. Member for Shipley Division had spoken as if the sole object of the framers of this Bill had been to strangle all the Building Societies throughout the country, and seemed to consider that the sub-section they were considering was intended to dictate to the Directors what sort of business they might in the future alone engage in, and how they were to do it. That was not so at all. The main object of the Bill was to give protection to members of Building Societies, and he considered that the members of Building Societies had a right to know in detail the nature of the transactions that the Directors entered upon. He could not help wondering whether the hon. Member had really seriously considered the painful lesson taught by the failure of many of these Societies that had taken place lately in all parts of the country. Many large Societies had failed, of which they had heard. But numbers of smaller Societies of which they had not heard had failed, bringing loss or ruin to the poorer classes. How could members be expected to know the state of the law, and after the experience gained by considering the Liberator failure, did his hon. Friend think they could really get at the true character of the people they were dealing with? His hon. Friend said also that this sub-section would have the effect of stopping Building Societies from advancing large sums of money. That was not the purpose for which Building Societies were founded, and recent experiences showed pretty conclusively that that kind of business was not desirable. The hon. Member had quoted from a letter of Mr. Binns in support of his argument. He himself had examined Mr. Binns when he gave evidence before the Select Committee, and he had put this very point to him. Mr. Binns then said distinctly that he had no objection to offer, so far, at any rate, as his own Society was concerned. He felt, therefore, that he was entitled to stand by the evidence which Mr. Binns had given before the Select Committee rather than by the opinion he had expressed in his letter which his hon. Friend had quoted from.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that the hon. Member for Shipley Division seemed satisfied with

  1631
  existing legislation, but he was of opinion himself that it had, at any rate, not been sufficient to protect the members of Building Societies against the evil doings of the officials. He maintained that there was a very great difference between banks and Building Societies. The Birkbeck was the solitary exception that he knew of where the two classes of business had been successfully carried on together. He pointed out that Building Societies were not founded with a view to carrying on business of the same nature as that of banks, and on that account they had been granted special privileges. It was exactly this very carrying on of business other than the strict business of Building Societies by them that they desired to see checked. If Building Societies wished to carry on the business of banks, then they should register themselves as limited Companies.
  MR. BILLSONsaid, that, although he approved of the clause as a whole, he was not in favour of the sub-section, which he considered would be quite unnecessary if the classification of mortgagees were carried a little higher.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that if there had been such a Return as this in the case of the Liberator Society, where there were mortgages amounting to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, was it conceivable there would not have been some alarm taken years before? From his experience he could say that there was not much risk in lending a number of small sums in different quarters, but the danger came in where large sums were lent not for Building Society purposes proper, but for building speculations. Against such risks the members of Building Societies ought to be protected.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Member for Shipley, in moving the present Amendment, desired, not to amend, but to kill the Bill. He hoped the House and Building Societies also would understand that that would be the effect of the Amendment. The hon. Member quoted a high authority for the statement that if the sub-section was included in the Bill it would destroy the most profitable business of Building Societies. In reply, he could assert that all the men coming before the Select Committee who had had
  1632
  experience of the winding-up of these Societies, and to whose judgment great weight ought to be attached, were strongly in favour of the clause as proposed in the Bill. In the Select Committee there was not a single Division upon this clause, nor, indeed, in regard to the whole Bill; the Committee were absolutely unanimous in passing the Bill as it stood. He stated boldly and frankly that, in his opinion, the Building Societies Acts were never intended to carry on the class of business affected by the sub-section. If Building Societies desired to lend £20,000, £30,000, or £50,000 on mortgages, that was not the kind of business for which they were established. He could not refrain from saying—the hon. Member forced it from him—that it was a remarkable fact that the high authority quoted represented a Society that made no return of its properties in possession. The gentleman had been one of the strongest opponents of this Bill. He made rather an extraordinary statement to the members of the Building Societies Association. He took the position that the safest mortgages were the largest mortgages. Mr. Binns, however, spoke with two voices, because, when he came before the Select Committee, he stated, in answer to a question put by himself, that—
  "The more you spread the risks and the smaller the individual amounts the better for everybody concerned."
  That was not quite consistent with the opinion this high authority expressed in the Association. He thought the House might take it that Mr. Binns before the Committee confirmed the view that really the danger was in the larger mortgages. Reference had been made to the fact that the requirements contained in this clause were not put upon bankers and others. There had, however, been a very pressing demand for investigation as to the investments of large Trust Companies. That demand had been resisted by the Directors of such Companies for a long time, but had at last been conceded. In his opinion, if such a power as was given by the subsection had been put into the hands of the members of Trust Companies an enormous proportion of the disasters that had resulted from the operations of such companies would, in all probability, have

  1633
  been avoided. He did not think it was desirable to subject business to too many legislative restrictions, but the business with which this Bill dealt was of a particular kind. The sub-section was intended to protect small people against, it might be, the officers of Societies. All that was asked for was that the members of business Societies should be placed in such a position that they would be able to ascertain more accurately and in greater detail how such Societies stood. He thought they were entitled to the information referred to, and that it was information which would be of the greatest value to the Societies, whilst at the same time it would not do a particle of injury to a sound and solvent Society. Although this Bill had not become law, a large proportion of the Societies which had held their annual meetings since the return of properties in possession was moved for in the House of Commons had taken up the question and given the information to their Members. He was certain that if the information were not required by Parliament it would be demanded by the members themselves in the future. Therefore there could be no harm in inserting this provision in the Bill.
  MR. BYLES: Therefore there can be no good.
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member hardly sees the tendency of his argument. Why do not the members get the information now?
  MR. BYLES: They do in our Society.
  MR. JACKSON: If so, I do not quite see why the giving of it in future can do any harm, and why Members should not have a statutory right to demand it.
  MR. BYLES: It is given in the aggregate, and not in such a manner that every individual mortgage can be traced to the detriment of business.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the fact was that it was given in a form that the Members could not understand. The Bill did not provide that there should be given name or locality or description of property, and therefore nobody without special knowledge would be able to identify any one of the properties given. In his opinion, without the Schedules the Bill would not be worth the paper it was printed on. They were the vital part of the measure, and the hon. Member knew it perfectly well. What was the
  1634
  hon. Member's reason for opposing the sub-section he (Mr. Jackson) could not say. The hon. Member's object was not to amend the Bill but to destroy it, and he hoped the House would not assent to his Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. BYLESmoved the omission of Sub-section (d), explaining that he did so, so as to have the opportunity of replying to some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson). As to Mr. Binns, he (Mr. Byles) could see nothing in the evidence given by that gentleman that was inconsistent with what he had stated. It was perfectly clear that Mr. Binns was suspicious of any information being asked for which would enable individual mortgages to be traced. When he (Mr. Byles) said that there was unanimity he meant that amongst the many correspondents from whom he had had letters, and who represented good Societies, there was practical unanimity. Mr. Binns had been perfectly consistent all through, and there was nothing in the evidence he gave before the Committee to show that he did not object to returns which would result in revelations being made. The right hon. Gentleman said he believed that no particle of injury would be done by this provision, and that it would be impossible to trace particular properties. All he (Mr. Byles) could say was that the authorities who had been in correspondence with him thought that injury would be done, and that the properties could be traced. He was told that in the West Riding of Yorkshire (which was a Register county) everyone who liked would be able to ascertain the name of the mortgage, the estimated value of the property, and the state of the Building Society's account in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member behind him (Mr. G. Balfour), as well as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gladstone) in charge of the Bill, were Members for the Borough of Leeds. There was a great Society at Leeds, and some Building Society experts thought they could see the hand of that Society running all through this Bill. It was a little unfortunate that three influential Members representing one borough should have been on the Committee, and should be

  1635
  promoting this Bill when they were told by Members from other parts of the country that the measure was extremely objectionable to other Societies. Subsection (d) proposed that additional particulars should be given of properties in possession. He believed that to give such particulars in the manner proposed in the Schedule would be detrimental and misleading. One of the particulars asked for was the original valuation of the property. Of what good, he asked, would such information be? He could give instances of properties which had been added to since they came into the possession of the Society, and which were now worth a great deal more in consequence. He could give instances of other properties where fires had occurred, and where, perhaps, half the properties had been destroyed. What was really wanted, if anything was wanted, was the present value of the property. The only effect of asking for particulars of properties in possession was to oblige the Societies at once to realise such properties. [Cries of "No!"] That would be the natural effect, because the Societies would wish to get their borrowing limit restored. They would, therefore, be almost forced to realise properties at a time when they could not be favourably realised, and the Societies would consequently suffer very considerable loss. It seemed to him that gentlemen who were taking part in the Debate in favour of the Bill were thinking of a totally different class of Building Societies from that which he had in his mind. There were no doubt many insolvent Building Societies, and it might be desirable to subject such Societies to the legislative restrictions proposed by the Bill, but there was also a class of Societies of great importance, magnitude, and value which were absolutely trusted by their members; which were doing legitimate and beneficial business, and which would be seriously injured by the proposals of this Bill. This legislation, which was aimed at dishonest Societies, would inevitably injure honest Societies. In casting the net to catch the guilty the promoters of the Bill were catching the righteous too. He could not help suggesting in regard to the bad Societies which the Bill was aimed at that there was no certainty that true returns would be obtained from
  1636
  them. The Directors of such Societies as the Liberator were surely very skilful in fraud and in the process of driving a coach-and-six through Acts of Parliament. When this Bill was passed it would be found that it would be laughed at by such men. Those who were fraudulent would be fraudulent still, and the returns they would send in would be untrustworthy. He firmly believed that this kind of legislation ought to be more carefully thought out. It was legislation in a panic. It was legislation that had been suggested by the Liberator frauds.
  An hon. MEMBER: They were two years ago.
  MR. BYLESsaid, the Bill would never have been thought of but for those frauds. He had, of course, no desire to defend fraudulent Companies. He should be very glad if the promoters of the Bill got all the rascals into their net, and he should not care much what was done with them, as he thought there was nothing worse than defrauding honest working men. He had no arrière pensée in proposing the Amendment. It was the honest, straightforward, well and democratically managed Societies that he had in mind, and he asked the House to be careful how it imposed upon them restrictions which would destroy their legitimate business.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out paragraph (d), of Sub-section 1, of Clause 2.—(Mr. Byles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in the case of every property of which the Society' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that no one would suspect the hon. Member of any arriére pensée in this matter, or that his wish was other than to promote the good of Building Societies. He was a little surprised to hear it said that the object of his hon. Friend and those with whom he acted was to destroy the Bill. Having been in frequent communication with the hon. Member on the subject, he (Sir J. Lubbock) felt bound to say that the hon. Member's desire was to make the Bill a good Bill. It was not the fact that all the authorities were in favour of this sub-section; and if the Committee on the Bill did not divide on these points it was only because the minority knew that they would be outvoted, and,

  1637
  therefore did not put the Committee to the trouble of taking Divisions. It must not be supposed that the Committee were in favour of all these suggestions. He very much feared that the clause would have the effect which the hon. Member for the Shipley Division had indicated; but he recognised that high authorities believed its advantages to outweigh its disadvantages. He would suggest, however, that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might meet the hon. Member for Shipley by modifying the Schedule. It might in two particulars be altered to meet in some degree the objections which had been urged. The publication of the roll number of the property secured no particular advantage, while it made identification easier; and, in the second place, there was nothing to be gained by requiring a statement of the amount of debt when possession was taken.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, that one of the advantages of the Schedule was that the amount of the debt was stated.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, it was desirable that that statement should be made, but it would be given in column 9. He had spoken in regard to column 8.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, that the Leeds Society set an example to other Societies all over the country; and it would be highly advantageous to have their Rules universal. Under their Rules one could see in a moment from the accounts the amount of the debt remaining to be paid and the amount of the redemption wanted on the property.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that sometimes too much was made of the bogey of identification. No doubt it was not desirable that every property should be advertised, and that everything about it should be known, but the importance of identification was over estimated. If property was in arrear over £5,000, he did not think any great harm would happen if somebody knew about it. He laid great stress on column 8 of the particulars. It was very important that people should see the amount of debt when possession was taken, for that, together with the statement of the present amount included in assets, showed whether the property was getting worse or better. No doubt there were cases in which the property taken over was quite good, but they were special cases. As a general rule, it was the
  1638
  worst property which came into possession. It did not follow that because property was valuable over and above the advance it would not come into possession, or that the owner would not like to sell it. But as a rule these were properties which were of the least value, and the value of which was getting less and less. These two columns would show everybody the class of property and whether it was improving or not. Considering the great importance to depositors and those interested in the Societies of knowing whether the Societies were developing or deteriorating these two columns should remain.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid the suggestions of the right hon. Member for London University as to the Schedule could not be accepted. He had an Amendment on the Paper requiring a statement to be made of the present debt on properties in arrear, and to require a statement of the amount of debt on taking possession was only one step further. The hon. Member for Shipley thought that there was a sinister influence from Leeds at work to frame the Bill so as to injure all Societies out of Leeds. But no less than four Bills were brought forward last year, and two of them did not emanate from Leeds. So far as the Government Bill was concerned it was drawn on the lines suggested by the Registrar from his own large experience. With regard to the particular Amendment under discussion he might say that he could not accept it, but he proposed to accept that which stood upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of Yorkshire, which would have the effect of providing that properties in possession should not be scheduled until after they had been 12 months in possession. He thought that that would meet the practical objection to the clause which had been pointed out by the Building Societies' authorities. In the case of well-managed Building Societies, when properties came into possession a considerable amount of money, sometimes equalling, or exceeding the rental, was expended upon them in order to make the best of the properties with a view to disposing of them to the best advantage. As he had said, during the first year it often happened that the outgoings on the property actually exceeded the income.

  1639
  That might have a very deleterious effect on the selling value of the properties, and so the Government had concluded to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend which, he thought, really met any serious objection to the clause. He had only one more remark to make on this question. The opinions of various authorities had been referred to, and the hon. Member for Shipley had said, in connection with the Liberator Society, that a skilled auditor would be able to drive a coach and six through an Act of Parliament. The skilled evidence taken on the subject did not support this view. Mr. Stewart, the liquidator of the Liberator group of Societies, was asked whether it would have been possible for creditors, if this clause had been passed into law at the time, to remain in ignorance of the position of the Society, and he replied that if the auditor had done his duty and acted up to his certificate it would have been impossible. The Government proposed to alter the certificate of the auditor, and he believed that under the provisions of this Bill what happened in the case of the Liberator would be practically impossible. The opinion of Mr. Stewart was upheld by other experienced gentlemen, amongst them being Mr. Peek, who was the official liquidator in the Portsea Island Building Society's case. Under the circumstances the Government must ask the House to reject the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. WHITTAKER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 2, line 35, leave out "is," and insert "has been 12 months."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, after Sub-section (d) to insert the words—
  "In the case of every mortgage to the Society where the repayments are upwards of 12 months in arrear at the date of the account or statement, the particulars shown by the tabular form in Part III. of the First Schedule of this Act."—(Mr. H. Gladstone.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment amended, by inserting, after the word "society," in line 1, the words "not included in Part I. or Part II. of the First Schedule of this Act."—(Mr. Whittaker.)
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "repayments are," and insert the words "interest is."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'repayments are' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, but they would meet the point by adding, after the word "repayments," the words "or interest where no capital is overdue."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment further amended, by inserting, after the word "repayments," in line 1, the words "or interest where a part of the capital is overdue," and by leaving out, in line 2, the words "date of the account or statement," and inserting the words "end of the official year."
  Words, as amended, inserted.
  COLONEL HUGHESmoved, in page 3, line 3, after the word "him," to insert the words—
  "and it shall be the duty of every auditor to verify and sign a book containing a record of all the deeds relating to each of such mortgages."
  He said, in well regulated Societies a deed book was kept, which contained not only the statement that there was a bundle of deeds but as to every deed in the bundle, and the auditors should be responsible for examining each of these bundles thoroughly. He had known many Societies where wrong-doing had taken place, and one frequent source of dishonesty had been the abstraction of deeds either by or through the negligence of officials. Unless the deeds were signed for on the occasion of the audit they could never prove whether the auditor saw them or not. This book containing a record of deeds would be an additional security, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, after the word "him," to insert the words—
  "And it shall be the duty of every auditor to verify and sign a book containing a record of all the deeds relating to each of such mortgages."—(Colonel Hughes.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CROSFIELDventured to hope that this Amendment would not be accepted. It appeared to him that the very cumbersome duty the hon. Member sought to impose upon an auditor would defeat the very object of the audit. Those hon. Members who were at all acquainted with property would know that a very small area of ground might involve a very large number of deeds. These deeds, in practice, were made up into a bundle, and they remained in possession of the Society for many years in succession. The auditor would be required to verify the schedule and list of these deeds for each annual account. He would never do that, but in practice he went over them. The first time they appeared in the Society's book he would make them into a bundle, and if he knew his business he would put his own seal on that bundle. The next time he verified these deeds he did not do it by breaking his own seal, but he satisfied himself that the seal had not been broken and again certified that he had seen the bundle of deeds. Surely to ask a man to see every document in the bundle of deeds would be an impossibility.
  MR. HOWELLhoped the House would accept the Amendment. Some time ago he was solicited to become a trustee of a Society. He consented, after a good deal of negotiations and upon certain conditions, the first of which was that he should see for himself the deeds representing the property of the Society. He was told that there was no necessity for this, that the deeds had been examined and were all right, and so on. He was told that he might feel quite assured that everything was perfectly safe. This did not satisfy him, and if he was to become a trustee he insisted on the fulfilment of the condition that he should see the deeds. He had no further communication from the Society for a period of three months, when some of the Directors wanted to know why it was that he did not take his position as trustee. The object in the particular instance to which he referred was to obtain his consent to act as trustee of the Society without the possibility of seeing the deeds representing the property for which he was to become trustee. The bare fact that an Institution—and an Institution in London—should imagine for a single moment
  1642
  that a man would accept the position of trustee without an opportunity of verifying the deeds for himself showed the absolute necessity of putting provision in an Act of Parliament. He hoped that for the protection of members, officers, and trustees of Societies, as well as auditors, the Government would accept this Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he could quite understand that when the hon. Member became trustee of a Society he might have been careful to go through every deed seriatim. But supposing it was part of the duties of a trustee to go through every deed every year, the hon. Member and many others would hesitate before they accepted the officer of trustee. He very much doubted whether the words of his hon. Friend's Amendment really carried the meaning which he gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech he intended they should carry. He doubted whether the words
  "It shall be the duty of the auditor to verify and s'gn a book containing a record of all the deeds relating to each of such mortgages,"
  carried with them any further meaning than that the auditor should satisfy himself that the deeds were there. If the auditor had adopted the very common plan suggested by the hon. Member for Lincoln—namely, of once for all looking through the packet of deeds and sealing it with his own seal, it would be quite unnecessary for him each year to go through all the deeds. He understood his hon. Friend would be satisfied with an Amendment to the effect that the auditor should satisfy himself that all the deeds were there, which he could easily do without going though them seriatim each year.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not accept this Amendment because, although they were all agreed as to its object, he did not believe that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman went much beyond the Bill as it now stood. The Bill provided that the auditor should certify that he had actually inspected the mortgage deeds and other securities belonging to the Society. If a document was missing and he certified the number as correct he gave a false certificate. It appeared to him that the sub-section as it stood was quite sufficient if they had an honest auditor. Of course, if they had a dis-

  1643
  honest one the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was no protection at all. That was how the matter struck the Government, and therefore they could not accept the Amendment.
  COLONEL HUGHESasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CREMERdesired to move an Amendment by way of addition to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Woolwich.
  An hon. MEMBER: It is withdrawn.
  MR. CREMERsaid, he should then address a question to Mr. Speaker as to what course he ought to pursue, and if he should be able to move the words as a separate Amendment. The words he desired to add were these—
  "And if such mortgages have been effected on houses, the auditor shall state whether such houses are occupied, and if unoccupied how long they have been so."
  The object of such an Amendment would be manifest to anyone who had any practical acquaintance with Building Societies.
  MR. SPEAKER: As the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman cannot add the addition to it which he has indicated, but he can bring up the words as a separate Amendment imposing that duty on the auditor.
  MR. CREMERintimated that he would take the opportunity of doing this at a later stage, when he should be able to adduce what he thought would be deemed to be sufficient reasons for giving this information to the shareholders. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not see his way to requiring that this information should be duly set forth.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he was afraid the hon. Member (Mr. Cremer) was proposing something which was entirely beyond the scope of the auditors' duties. The business of the auditor was to look through the books and documents placed before him and to verify what he saw, but it was a matter of outside information altogether whether the houses or properties were occupied or not. If that information was required, it would require to be demanded in another form.
  MR. CREMERsaid, he would move it in the form of a new column to the Schedule.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, the next Amendment he desired to move raised the very important question as to the proportion of members who might ask for an inquiry. An inquiry must naturally put a Society not only on its defence, but almost lead to a cessation of business, because people were naturally timid, and, although he thought it a most desirable thing that there should be an inquiry, it was a most serious matter for a going concern, and should not be done on the motion of a few discontented people, who might have had some dispute with the Society which they ought to have referred to arbitrators. As the Bill now stood, any 10 members could combine and harass and even ruin a Society on the suspicion of something being wrong. It was true the Registrar had got to grant it, but the application was a thing which would be known, and this in itself might do a great deal of harm. It seemed to him a pity not to make it some sort of proportion of the total number of members—say, one-tenth of the whole number. By the present proposal he thought they were giving 10 people a power for mischief which they ought not to have, and for the security of the bulk of the shareholders it ought at least to be a tenth of the whole number. Then the question was, whether it should be the whole number of members or only those who were investors? He did not think a borrower had much right to an investigation unless he participated in profits. There were Societies of different kinds. In a Society to which he belonged the whole of the profits and losses belonged to the investing shareholders. The borrowers were exempt by the Rules from any liability for loss. In that case he did not think the borrowers ought to have the right to investigate the affairs of a Society of their own motion, or to join with others in investigating the affairs of the Society. He did not attach so very much importance to this point, but he did lay great stress upon the proportion of one-tenth of the whole number.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the words "one-tenth of the whole number of the."—(Colonel Hughes.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he did not think they could possibly agree to such a proposal as this, because in the larger Societies it would render it quite impossible to have an inquiry at all. The subsequent sub-clauses were so carefully drawn that he thought it prevented any possibility of such a case happening as the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Hughes) had referred to. First of all, the Registrar was to be the judge, and then all expenses incidental to the inquiry were to fall upon these persons if it was a fictitious case. He thought persons would be very careful in bringing up a case of this sort where they were liable to pay the costs unless there was some foundation for it. The Committee thought over this a great deal, and they saw the difficulty of fixing any number without making it unreasonable for some Societies. In giving the Registrar the discretion he thought the Bill as it stood really covered all difficulties, and to make the proportion one-tenth would render the clause practically useless.
  MR. FIELDsaid, he thought there ought to be some ratio of the total number of members. He knew perfectly well that discontented persons who had to do with Building Societies could do a great deal of harm unless this section was drawn in the way suggested. This would give greater security to those who had perhaps sunk all their money in one of these Societies.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he thought the hon. Member who had just spoken had failed to observe that the protection he desired was provided by the clause as it stood. He believed that if an application were made and actually refused by the Registrar the probable effect would be not to weaken but to strengthen a Society.
  MR. BANBURYsaid, he thought if some words were put in limiting the 10 to those who were shareholders, and who shared in the profit and loss, it would meet the case. He did not think that the borrowers who did not share in the profit and loss should have the power in their hands. Anyone who had had experience of shareholders knew the tremendous difficulty it was to get a body of shareholders to move, and if they made
  1646
  it too large a number it would be absolutely impossible in many cases to have an inquiry at all. As it was entirely with the discretion of the Registrar, and as a certain sum had to deposited and the expenses defrayed by those making the application, he could not think any harm could possibly result.
  MR. CARSONsaid, he asked at an earlier stage of the evening as to the position of the Registrar in Ireland, and the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill gave him an answer privately that he was practically subordinate to the Registrar here. Since then his attention had been directed to the words "Chief Registrar" in the 21st section, and he would like to ask what was the difference between "the Registrar" and "the Chief Registrar"?
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, the Registrar practically included the two gentlemen in London who were at the head of the Office. Their jurisdiction was superior to the jurisdiction of the Registrar in Ireland or in Scotland. He could not accept the Amendment for the reasons which had been stated by previous speakers, and with which he quite agreed. He thought the provision was adequately safeguarded, and that the Registrar would not grant the inquiry unless satisfied that there was, at any rate, a primâ facie case made out. He thought it might be assumed that he would take care to ascertain what the position of the Society was, and that he would not give his permission for an inquiry unless he felt there was a good case made out.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he would take the case of one of the Leeds Societies, in which there were 11,250 members. One-tenth of the total number would require 1,120 members of that Society to make an application to the Registrar, and when he said he believed that at the annual meetings, although great efforts were made from time to time to get members to attend, it was with the greatest possible difficulty they could get 500 members present, he thought it would be seen that the Amendment was quite impracticable.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he did not think it was sufficient that the application should be made by dissentient share-

  1647
  holders, and that the Registrar should decide on that ex parte application whether there was to be an investigation or not. He thought that, before he could judge as to whether it was necessary to act under Section 4, he ought to give the Society notice of the application and ask for evidence in support of the application. He did not say what evidence he should have, but something that was to his satisfaction.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, after the word "follows," to insert the words—
  "(a) The application shall be supported by such evidence as the Registrar may direct, for the purpose of showing that the applicants have good reason for requiring the inspection to be made; and (b) Such notice of the application shall be given to the Society as the Registrar may direct; and." — (Colonel Hughes.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he did not think the Amendment was necessary, and he thought in some degree it might be injurious. The words were "if he thinks fit," and of course, anyone exercising his discretion would require to see such a primâ facie case as was satisfactory to himself. That might, or might not, require evidence to be gone into. A frivolous application he would refuse at once, and the Registrar would certainly take such methods as he thought were necessary to enable him to judge whether he should grant or refuse an application. The Amendment would, accordingly, fetter him. It might compel him to ask for evidence, where there was not a primâ, facie case, to go any further. Then as to notice to a Society. That, surely, was a thing which hardly came in here, because it was a duty to be performed by the Registrar, and if the Registrar knew his duty he need not say anything to the Society until an application was made.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, this really arose in the Committee on the proposal, which was largely supported, that there should be the power to an individual member of a Society to inspect the books of the Society. Opinions varied, but the Committee came to the conclusion that there were a great many objections to allowing an individual member of the Society to go worrying the officers from time to
  1648
  time, and, in all probability, if he did he would get no advantage, because everybody knew that if a man who had no knowledge of accounts were simply turned loose into the office to inspect the books, he might inspect the whole of them and be no wiser afterwards than he was before. But it was felt there might be cases where the officers were refusing to give information, and that in principle it was right that members should have the power to inspect the books. Therefore, the Committee adopted this form as being, in the interests of members in such a case, the most effective manner of their obtaining the information they wanted. His hon. and gallant Friend would see that the other important question he had raised was provided for in the next clause, and that in that case notice was given to the Society. Obviously, in this case where information might be desired they ought to have the means of obtaining it; but at the same time there ought to be the protection to the Society and to the officers that they should not be harassed and worried by cantankerous persons who might obtain no benefit from the result of their inspection. It was suggested the number should be three members, but that was thought too few, and so the number of 10 was adopted in order to give some protection to the Society.
  SIR E. CLARKEsaid, he could quite understand the reasons for which this was adopted, and the reasons which suggested to the Committee that it would be an extremely bad thing for Building Societies that they should be liable to be harassed by the inspection of single members. But it really did not seem to him that any answer had been given to the suggestion that this Amendment was a useful one. What had been said was that if the Registrar was doing his duty he would require a primâ facie case to support the application. He protested against the phrase "primâ, facie case." It meant anything or nothing, as the case might be, and he thought there ought to be some satisfactory reason for granting this inquiry. It was appointing an accountant or an actuary, at the expense of the Society, to go all over the books of the Society to examine them, and if it was conceded that the Registrar ought to have some evidence before him before he granted the application he

  1649
  thought it ought to be specified in the clause. As the clause now stood the Registrar might for any reason, or for no reason, quite frivolously grant this expensive inquiry, and there were no means of checking it at all. It was admitted he ought to have some reason for granting the inquiry, and why was it not allowable to put in some evidence before him in order that it might be decided otherwise? It appeared to him a matter of such importance that it ought to be put on the face of the clause, and he thought the Amendment was worth while accepting.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he thought it was clear the Registrar would be grossly neglecting his duty if he were not to act in the sense of the Amendment, so long as he proposed to grant that application; but if it appeared to him, on the very face of it, that the application was a frivolous one, why should he be compelled by Statute to give notice to the Society? It would be far better when this evidence, which he considered perfectly frivolous, was laid before him, he should be able immediately to tell the applicants, "No, you have made out no case, and I decline to proceed any further in this matter."
  MR. CARSONsaid, it appeared to him the argument just adduced to the House was the very strongest argument in favour of the Amendment, but the hon. Member said that before he granted an inquiry the Registrar ought to insist on having the particular matter before him that they said the Amendment provided for. Surely if the Registrar ought to do it, there was no harm in having the Amendment there, and seeing that he did do it. It occurred to him that if it was necessary to put this limitation upon the power of the Registrar in Section 5, it was equally necessary to put it in the 4th section.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it seemed to have escaped some hon. Members that there was already some security against frivolous applications, inasmuch as it was provided that the applicants should deposit such sum for security as the Registrar might require. That, he believed, would do something to check frivolous applications.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. DANEsaid, the Amendment which he desired to move was for the purpose of constituting an appeal from Sections 4 and 5. By those sections the Registrar was given very large and very unlimited, and, in some degree, judicial powers. These unlimited powers, in his opinion, ought to have some controlling effect, and therefore he proposed by his Amendment that the Society might appeal to the Court in the manner prescribed by it. It was all very well to say that the Registrar would not act on merely slight evidence, or that he would not act in a frivolous or vexatious way. But the best way to secure that was to have an appeal to some tribunal which would possess the confidence of the public as well as the confidence of members of the Society, and the Court which he had suggested in his Amendment was to be the Court which was defined in Section 4 of the Act of 1874. Again, there was no definition in the Bill of the word "Registrar," and he found in the 21st section the words "Chief Registrar," which showed that there must be a difference between "Registrar" and "Chief Registrar." He had carefully gone through all the Building Societies' Acts, which were to be considered as one with this Bill, and the only definition of "Registrar" he could find was one in the principal Act of 1874, which described the Registrar as the Registrar for the time being of Friendly Societies in England, Scotland, or Ireland, as the case may be. Therefore, the wide powers given under this Bill would be placed in the hands of gentlemen whom he might call District Registrars throughout the Kingdom. Surely there ought to be some check upon these gentlemen, and therefore an appeal ought to be allowed to the County Court in England, to the Sheriff's Court in Scotland, and the Civil Bill Court in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 43, after the word "members," to insert the words—
  "A Society may appeal to the Court in manner to be prescribed by it from any decision of the Registrar made under this or the preceding section, and thereupon the Court may make such order rescinding, confirming, and varying such decision and upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as to the Court shall seem proper."—(Mr. Dane.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. With regard to the question of the Registrar, there were two officials in London—a Chief Registrar and an Assistant Registrar, and they acted together in England. In Scotland and in Ireland there was a Registrar, and both were subordinate to the Chief Registrar, and therefore the members and officials of a Building Society could appeal to the Chief Registrar against the decisions of the Registrar. It appeared to the Government that the functions of the Registrar under the clause were executive and devolved upon him subject to the authority of the Secretary of State. This clause was practically taken from the 23rd section of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, and, as far as he knew, no difficulty had been experienced in the working of that section.
  MR. CARSONadmitted that there were reasons why the Government could not accept the Amendment, and agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was to a large extent one of an executive character. So far as he was concerned, speaking on behalf of a very large Building Society in Dublin, he should be content if there was an appeal in all cases to the Chief Registry in London; but he was bound to say that he had looked carefully through the principal Act—the Act of 1874—and he could find in it no provision for an appeal from the Registrar to the Chief Registrar.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: The Friendly Societies Act of 1875 contains it.
  MR. FIELD: Why not make it clear by introducing it into this clause?
  Question put, and negatived.
  COLONEL HUGHESmoved to add at the end of the last sub-section of Clause 5, which enacts that where evidence is furnished by a statutory declaration of not less than three members of facts which in the opinion of the Registrar call for investigation, or for recourse to a meeting of members, the following new proviso:—
  "Provided that the Registrar shall forthwith, on receipt of such declaration, send a copy and notice thereof to the Society, and such Society shall, within 14 days from the sending of such copy declaration, be entitled to give the Registrar an explanatory statement in writing, by
  1652
  way of reply thereto; which statement, if received, shall also be submitted to the said Secretary of State."
  The Building Society seemed to be ignored altogether in the transaction. Surely, both sides ought to be heard in the matter. When a declaration was made against a Society it was only fair that the Society should be sent a copy of it, and have the opportunity of answering it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 43, after the word "members," to insert the words—
  "(d) Provided that the Registrar shall, forthwith, on receipt of such declaration, send a copy and notice thereof to the Society, and such Society shall, within 14 days from the sending of such copy declaration, be entitled to give the Registrar an explanatory statement in writing, by way of reply thereto, which statement, if received, shall also be submitted to the said Secretary of State."—(Colonel Hughes.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, the Government were willing to accept the Amendment minus the words at the end—"which statement, if received, shall also be submitted to the said Secretary of State."
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he had no objection to the omission of those words.
  Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "which statement, if received, shall also be submitted to the said Secretary of State."
  Words, as amended, inserted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 12, to leave out the word "present."—(Mr. Dane.)
  Question, "That the word 'present' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 16, to leave out the words "present at the meeting," and insert the words "of the Society."—(Mr. Brookfield.)
  Question, "That the words 'present at the meeting,' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 20, after the word "Society," to insert the words—
  "(3) A notice of any such meeting stating the nature of the proposed scheme, together with a form of proxy, shall be sent by post to every member of the Society at least 14 days before the date of the meeting, and members

  1653
  shall be at liberty to vote at such meeting by proxy."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government would accept this Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR E. CLARKEasked, as the words "present at the meeting" were retained by the Government, what was the use of agreeing to the sending of proxies?
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Amendment would introduce trouble and expense. It meant that the Society would have to go to the trouble and expense of sending proxy forms to everybody.
  MR. FIELDsaid, that everyone having an interest in a Building Society should be consulted as to its affairs.
  MR. CREMERthought that if voting by proxy was introduced, in the majority of cases of Societies in which malpractices had taken place the officials, if they desired unduly to influence the members, would have a splendid opportunity for doing so.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, that words enabling "those present in person or by proxy" would have to be inserted in order to make sense of the clause.
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that he would take care that adequate words were inserted.
  MR. CARSONmoved, in page 7, line 26, after "Scotland," insert "or Ireland." The Amendment would have the effect of enabling Building Societies in Ireland as well as in Scotland to lend upon the security of second mortgages. He could not understand why the distinction should be drawn in this matter between Scotland and Ireland, as the system of lending on second mortgages was identical in Ireland and Scotland. The difficulty in England with regard to lending on second mortgages was that there was no registration, but in Ireland, owing to the system of registration, it was easy to see what security there was in a second mortgage. One of the largest Building Societies in Dublin, which had lent £1,500,000, had advanced considerable sums upon second mortgages, which had turned out satisfactory in every way, and there had been no difficulty in realising them. If the Bill passed as it stood, it would prevent loans in Ireland being
  1654
  made upon the security of second mortgages, so far as Building Societies were concerned.
  COLONEL HUGHES: Not affecting existing securities.
  MR. CARSONsaid, he saw no distinction drawn in the clause between existing Societies and Societies to be formed hereafter; nor was there any distinction between existing securities and securities to be created hereafter. If it were made illegal to lend on second mortgages, he was inclined to think that those Societies would have to realise their securities on second mortgages in order to bring themselves within the Act, which, in the case of the Dublin Society he had mentioned, would mean that the Society would have to be wound up. He wanted to know why Ireland should be placed in a different position to Scotland, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 26, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words "or Ireland."—(Mr. Carson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or Ireland' be there inserted."
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, it was with some misgiving that the Committee put this clause into the Bill. They considered that second mortgages were dangerous. They had, however, a great deal of evidence from Scotch Building Societies which showed that a large number of them made a practice of lending on second mortgages, and on very strong representations being made the Committee consented to put the clause in the Bill. As far as Ireland was concerned no representation at all had been made, and no evidence was tendered to the Committee by any Irish Society. He was afraid he could not accept the Amendment offhand, but he would undertake to make inquiries into the subject, and if the circumstances in Ireland were found to be identical with the circumstances in Scotland the Government would be prepared to include Ireland in the clause.
  MR. FIELDsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman from personal experience that there was a great deal of money lent by Irish Building Societies on second mortgages, and he trusted that the Irish Societies would not be placed

  1655
  in a worse position than the Scotch Societies.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought that most Irishmen would be inclined to ask for that which was conceded to Scotland.
  MR. T. M. HEALYwas disposed to think that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to accept the Amendment. Unless the Committee had distinct evidence on the point and acted on it, he thought it would be better to omit Ireland from the Bill. It would be rather a hardship on the general body of property-holders if they were debarred from obtaining loans on second mortages.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURexplained that a second mortgage in Scotland was quite a different quality of security from second mortgages in England, and he believed also in Ireland. But if it were found that in Ireland second mortgages constituted the same class of security as in Scotland, the Government would be willing to grant the concession to Ireland.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid that, as far as England was concerned, he would rather see the Bill go than that English Societies should be allowed to lend on second mortgages.
  MR. TOMLINSONhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The law of Ireland approached very closely to the law of England, and he could not help thinking that it would seriously depreciate the value of the securities of these Societies in Ireland if they were allowed to lend on second mortgages.
  MR. CARSONsaid, that on the assurance that the matter would be considered and if necessary the Amendment inserted in another place, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BYLESsaid, he felt bound to move the Amendment standing in his name for the omission of the 13th clause, for the reason that several Societies had expressed to him their objection to the provision very strongly. What did it propose? It provided that in calculating the amount for the time being secured to a Society under the Building Societies Acts by mortgages from its members, for the purpose of ascertaining the limits of its power to receive deposits or loans at interest, the amount secured on properties, the payments in respect of which were upwards of 12 months in arrear at
  1656
  the date of the Society's last preceding annual account and statement, and the amount secured on properties of which the Society was in possession at the date of such account and statement, should be disregarded, provided that the section did not effect the validity of any deposit or loan which was within the limit provided by law at the time when it was received, and should not come into operation until the expiration of 12 months from the passing of the Act. It was absurd to suppose that, because the property upon which money had been advanced was in possession, therefore it ceased to be of value, or that it ceased to be of value so soon as the repayments fell into arrears. He hoped therefore, if the Government did not see their way to omitting the clause from the Bill altogether, at any rate, they would greatly modify its application.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 32, to leave out Clause 13.—(Mr. Byles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'In calculating the amount,' stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, this was really the most important matter in the entire Bill. Many Societies had undoubtedly taken loans by way of precaution, and they might have done to the extent of two-thirds of their mortgages. Take a Society with £300,000 mortgages. By loans it might have secured on them £200,000. There might be on property dealt with over some years, involving millions of money advanced, some £60,000 due on lapsed properties. The property on which that money was due could not be worthless. £40,000 of deposits might be borrowed on security of it, and it did seem a strong thing to require from a solvent Society the paying within 12 months of this £40,000 to the depositors, the depositors having given no notice of withdrawal. The transaction had been legalised by the Act of 1874. He should have no objection to the acceptance of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, by which the clause would have applied to future Societies. But for existing Societies, which were in the position of having two-thirds of the amount of their mortgages borrowed on deposits, to have

  1657
  their business suddenly restricted in this way would be most unfair. The clause, he felt sure, would work a very great injustice to these established Societies that had just managed to struggle through the crisis of the last two years and were now looking forward to better times. These Societies were to be attacked not by the public nor the depositors, but by the Legislature, who would say to them, "You shall shrink your deposits by this large sum of £40,000, which is lent on mortgages of £60,000." Only 75 per cent. of the value was lent, leaving a further margin of 25 per cent. It was not reasonable to require a person in trade, because he happened to have done a wise thing in having gone into possession because the parties were three months in arrear with payments—it was not a wise thing to require him to reckon his asset at nothing. Such difficulties should not be placed in the way of Societies which had hitherto weathered the storm. If these Societies were called upon to find this money they would have to sell whatever property they could realise, and that within the short space of 12 months from the passing of the Bill. It might compel them to stop their business. Unless some assurance were given them that the clause in its present form should not apply to existing Societies, or some other concessions were made, he hoped that the matter would be pressed to a Division.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that he also had had an Amendment down to leave out this clause. He thought the Government would make a great mistake if they insisted on retaining it in all its deformity. While smarting under a terrible calamity caused by dishonesty the Committee was being urged in a fit of panic to proceed with severe legislation in regard to Societies which were perfectly unimpeachable, the result being to probably destroy them and to inflict injury on millions of persons. The Government could not foresee the extent of what they were now doing. But he would not enter into the matter more fully, as the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Hughes) had dealt with the clause thoroughly. He was sure the experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would weigh largely with many hon. Members in the House. It was intimate and of long standing. He (Mr.
  1658
  Hopwood) would divide with the hon. and gallant Member.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he was not prepared to admit that the Liberator catastrophe was the only cause of this Bill being called for, nor that it was legislation in a panic. The Bill had been before Parliament for at least two years, and had been carefully considered in the Committee upstairs and again in the Grand Committee. With regard to this particular Amendment, while he himself would not be personally indisposed to give a certain period of grace before the clause came into operation, he must say he did trust that the Government would stand to the clause. His hon. and gallant Friend had spoken of the hardship it would be to existing well-managed Societies if the clause was passed; but he did not think that well-managed Societies should borrow up to the edge of their borrowing powers. He supported the clause, because it would discourage borrowing up to the limit of two-thirds of the amount at present allowed by law. In his opinion, Societies ought to be most careful to keep a long way from that. It was undesirable that Societies should be tempted to maintain properties in possession instead of selling them. He did not wish to see provisions introduced into the Bill compelling disastrous sales, but he imagined that if a period of grace were given, the terms of the clause and of the Bill were such that they would not bring about rapid and disastrous sales, but would put gentle pressure on the Directors of Societies to realise property in possession.
  MR. BILLSON, said, the Government might adopt the period of five years in the clause.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept that. He thought the clause would do a great deal of good, and that it might be modified in two respects. He would appeal to the Government or rather suggest that they should make an alteration to the effect that the clause should apply not to property in possession but to property which had been 12 months in possession. That would be an alteration rather consequential on what had been already done. As to the period of grace, he might say that as far as he had been able to form an opinion on the subject he thought the

  1659
  greatest importance should be attached to the clause, and to the influence which would be brought to bear on Societies to get rid of properties in possession. He had seen a list of 15 Lancashire Societies which showed that the total mortgage assets were £1,300,000 and the total amount of properties in possession £574,000. He did not think that bore out the statement that Societies did not need stimulating in this matter. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the clause. If the Government would make a concession that the operation of the Bill as regarded this section should be two years instead of one, that would be a fair compromise. That would allow a longer time for getting rid of these properties in possession.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that in line 39 the word "was" was struck out, and the words "society has been 12 months" were inserted. If "two years" were put in in the second line of the next page that would give three years' grace. They were all agreed as to the desirability of bringing about a reduction in the amount of property in possession.
  MR. BYLES: I will take what I can get.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 7, line 39, leave out "was," and insert "had been twelve months."
  Page 8, line 2, leave out "twelve months," and insert "two years."
  MR. DANEmoved to amend Clause 14 by providing that a Society established after the passing of the Act should not use any name or title other than its registered name, and should not accept any deposit except on the terms that not less than one month's notice might be required by the managers before repayment or withdrawal. This would prevent a grievous wrong being done to Irish Societies.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 3, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "established after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Dane.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that this clause originally was prepared by the
  1660
  Building Societies themselves, and appeared in the Bill brought in on their behalf by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London. The Government could not accept the Amendment, which had been carefully considered by the Committee upstairs.
  MR. CARSONsaid, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman could not accept a modification of the clause. He himself had put down an Amendment, but exempting Societies established prior to the Building Societies Act, 1874. He had been addressed on this matter by a large Building Society in Dublin—he thought the largest Building Society in Ireland—in whose case banking was a large part of the business done. When they had been engaged in such operations Parliament should not, at a time like the present, take away from them what was one of the most substantial parts of their business. If the House passed the clause unamended they would practically enact that Societies that had long and honourably done banking business would have to be wound up. While they wanted to protect the public against bogus Societies, Societies which had flourished for 25 years should be protected by suitable limitations.
  MR. FIELDsaid, he understood the object of the Bill was to strengthen the working of solvent Building Societies rather than destroy them. What had fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Carson) was quite correct.
  Question put, and negatived.
  It being Midnight, Further Proceeding stood adjourned.
  Proceeding to be resumed To-morrow.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL. (No. 156.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR A. ROLLITasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was in a position to state to the House what were the prospects of the Bill, the passage of which, if possible without undue concessions, was anxiously looked for by traders, and especially by those who were being paid by the Railway Companies in excess of the rates of 1892?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)
    1661
    said, that after a great many conferences between Members representing one set of interests and Members representing another, certain Amendments had been agreed to which he believed fairly represented a compromise which both parties were likely to consider satisfactory. He was putting down Amendments which would represent the views the Board of Trade took in the matter. He hoped on an early day to ask the House to take the Bill and to afford an opportunity for as much discussion as was necessary to enable hon. Members to express an opinion on the subject. He trusted that the Bill would be taken and carried through in the same amicable spirit that had marked the proceedings hitherto.
    SIR A. ROLLITasked when the Bill would be taken?
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he could not say at present.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  COAL MINES (CHECK-WEIGHER) BILL. (No. 340.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Asquith.)
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that without desiring to oppose or delay this Bill, he wished to make an observation about it. The Bill made it an offence for any employer to influence by a threat of dismissal a workman in the appointment of a check-weigher. He believed that that was a very necessary and proper thing, but he would draw the attention of the House to the important consequences which would follow from that doctrine. It practically put the threat to dismiss a workman in the same position as an act of intimidation. When it was done with the intention of persuading a person not to do that which he had a legal right to do, it put him to that extent under intimidation. It was obvious that the counterpart of the refusal of employment was the refusal to give services, and it was notorious that in many cases the threat to refuse services was made use of for the purpose of inducing employers not to do that which they had a legal right to do.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,)said, the hon. Member was quite within his right in referring to this matter. He thought there was no real difference of opinion on either side of the House as to the expediency of this proposal. Parliament had deliberately enacted that the workmen should have a right to appoint a check-weigher, who should have a right to take observation of the weight of coal brought up, and for that purpose have access to the weighing machine. The Coal Mines Act of 1887 penalised the employer for impeding or interfering with the check-weigher, and this Bill was brought forward to penalise him for an obvious evasion of that Act—that was, that the employer should not have a right to say to the men that he would dismiss them if they continued to employ a particular person as check-weigher. He was certain that the House would agree that that, though not an infraction of the Act of 1887, was an evasion of it. Clearly the intention of Parliament had been that the workman should have the right to select and continue in his employment a check-weigher who possessed their confidence.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not oppose the Bill; but as it had only been delivered to-day, he would suggest that before reading it a second time further opportunity of considering its provisions should be given to persons interested in the subject.
    It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [Lords].—(No. 242.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Asquith.)
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that this Bill had not yet been printed. They had passed a Bill on this subject this year, and there was another on the Statute Book, and he should, therefore, like to know what the present measure was.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was a Bill of consolidation merely. There were two Acts in existence on the subject, and the object of the present Bill was to consolidate them. It effected no change in the law. The Bill had passed through the House of Lords and the scrutiny of many eminent lawyers.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he had gone through the Bill, and had failed to find in it anything about consolidation.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had great objection to reading a Bill a second time before it had been printed.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he believed the Bill was correctly described as being a consolidation Bill. It was carefully considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, of which he was a Member, but at the same time he thought there was a strong objection to passing a Bill which had not been printed.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that as a matter of Order a Bill should not be read a second time before it had been printed,
    1664
    whether it came from the House of Lords or not.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is for the House to judge. There is no question of Order.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (LAGAN, &c. CANALS) BILL [by Order].—(No.267.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  PRIZE COURTS BILL [Lords].—(No. 311.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST.
Lord Coleridge, after the death of his father.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 12.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL [H.L.] (No. 152.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].—(No. 43.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 126.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (No. 55.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARRY, &C.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 54.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have added a Member to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills as requested by their Lordships.
CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL.—(No. 192.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
BRITISH MUSEUM (PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.—(No. 173.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (LAGAN, &C., CANALS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 197.)

CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 198.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Ten o'clock.