Sitting of 7 August 1896

COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
Account [presented 6th August] to be printed.—[No. 332.]
COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Paper [presented 6th August] to be printed.—[No. 333.]
  COMPANIES WINDING-UP.
  Copy presented,—of Fifth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 334.]

  LOCAL TAXATION (ENGLAND) ACCOUNT, 1895–6.
  Return ordered,—
  "Showing, in respect of the financial year ended the 31st day of March 1896—(1) the total amount of the Local Taxation Licences, Probate Duty Grant, and Estate Duty paid into the Local Taxation (England) Account, and the amounts paid out of such Licences, Probate Duty Grant, and Estate Duty to, or on behalf of, the Council of each Administrative County and County Borough; (2) the amounts paid out of the proceeds of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties to each Police Authority in aid of Police Pension Funds; and (3) the amounts paid out of the residue of the proceeds of those Duties to the Council of each Administrative County and County Borough."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 335.]

JUDICIAL TRUSTEES BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned,
*MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to Bills which had passed both Houses. [For list, see House of Lords proceedings of this date.]

ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Royal Patriotic Fund have leave to sit To-morrow, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House.—(Mr. Woodall.)
WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
Read the first time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 335.]
RURAL WORKERS' (SCOTLAND) HOLIDAYS.
Bill to make provision for Holidays and Half-holidays for Rural Workers in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. White and Dr. Clark; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 336.]
QUESTIONS.

  ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.).I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many names of candidates for the next examination for Army Medical Staff in August have been received; and, what are the completed ages of these candidates?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Thirty-one candidates have applied, their completed ages varying from 22 to 27 years, with an average of 24 years and eight months.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is a rule in the Metropolitan Police Force that any officer charged with an offence against the rules of the service is entitled to meet his accuser face to face and to question the said accuser in the presence of a superior officer; and, whether this rule is invariably adhered to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The general rule is as stated in the Question, but the hon. Member will admit that complaints against a constable cannot be altogether ignored in cases where the complainant does not attend in person. In all cases, however, if after careful inquiry the matter appears to be in doubt, the complainant is referred to a magistrate.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE BOARD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statement, at a public meeting, of Mr. James Mahaffy, J.P., Belturbet, to the effect that, owing to the bungling of the Lough Erne Drainage Board, the River Erne from Belturbet to Belleek has not been made navigable as was originally intended; whether, in view of the fact that, if a deepening of the river at the two or three places where rapids first were made, traffic by steamer both for goods and tourists could be carried on with profit, especially in the case of tourists during the summer season, he will inquire for and lay before this House an estimate of the cost it would entail to afford passage to steamers of 100 tons from Belleek to Belturbet; and, if the cost is not found to be large, will the Treasury enable the Lough Erne Drainage Board to undertake the work?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. W. HANBURY), who is unavoidably absent from the House, has asked me to answer this Question for him. He is informed that the Erne was made navigable from Belleek to Belturbet as part of the drainage scheme lately carried out, and to
  96
  the depth proposed in the plans. Some years have elapsed since the cuts were made, and the Board of Works report that an investigation would be necessary to ascertain their present condition, but, judging from the plans, the Board believe that a steamer of the cargo capacity mentioned could ply between the places named. In the absence of evidence that any further expenditure on the navigation is required, the question of a further grant (in addition to the £15,000 voted between 1882 and 1885) does not arise.

  ARVAGH DISPENSARY DISTRICT (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of a change of residence of the medical officer of the Arvagh, county Cavan, dispensary district, patients living in the electoral division of Drumcarban have to go a distance of eight miles for medical advice and medicine, in many cases at a serious risk to life; and whether, seeing that this part of this division is contiguous to the dispensary district of Bellanagh, would it be possible to so divide the townlands of the electoral division as to place those lying beside Bellanagh on the list of townlands for the attention of the medical officer of that district, instead of, as at present, compelling the sick poor in them to travel eight and ten miles to get relief in the Arvagh dispensarv?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. GERALD BALFOUR,): It is the fact that the Medical Officer of the Arvagh District changed his residence some years ago to a place about three-quarters of a mile distant from his former abode; but his present residence is the one occupied by his predecessor, and is situated within the district. The medical officer's residence is about eight miles from the remotest townland in the Drumcarban electoral division, though this, I am informed, is not an unusual distance, and if found inconvenient for the sick poor the Local Government Board are prepared to consent to the establishment of a depot at the Drumcarban end of the district if the Guardians should so desire. The Board are debarred by statute from subdividing an electoral division as suggested in the Question.

  ARMY LANCE STAVES.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the ash lance staves issued to Dragoon Guards and Dragoon regiments have been reported by Boards of Officers and Officers Commanding to be brittle, unreliable, and unfit for active service; and what steps are being taken to replace them with bamboos?
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is recognised that the ash lance staves are not satisfactory, but great difficulty is found in procuring sufficient bamboo staves which fulfil all the conditions required in the specification. It is hoped to provide a store of bamboo lances for use on active service, retaining the ash slaves for use during peace.
  MR. JOHN MCLEOD (Sutherland): What is the country of origin of ash staves? Are they made in Germany?
  Mr. BRODRICKdissented by shaking his head.

  WATERLOO (FRENCH INFANTRY EAGLE).
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, where the Eagle of the 45th French Infantry of the Line, captured by Sergeant Ewart, Scots Greys, at Waterloo, is now hung or stored?
  MR. BRODRICK: This trophy is in the chapel of Chelsea Hospital.

  LEENAN HEAD DEFENCE WORKS (COUNTY DONEGAL).
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what number of workmen are employed on the Defence Works at Leenan Head, county Donegal, now in course of construction; what is the rate of wages offered by the contractors, and is it equal to the usual wages paid by local employers; whether complaints have been made by local labourers, and a list of employers with the wages paid by them has been received from the labourers by the Secretary of State for War, with a request that, according to the terms of the contract he would insist on the contractors paying fair wages; and, whether he intends to take any action in the matter?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,)The number of men employed on the works at Leenan Head is stated to be 12. Inquiries have been made as to the wages paid locally and by the contractor, and the latter appear to be the current rate; but complaints have been received and a further investigation has been ordered.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon): Out of what Vote is provision made for these works?
  *MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I can-not say at the moment.

  FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether there is any intention to deal by legislation with the Report of the Select Committee on Feus and Leases (Scotland), 1894–5?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I am unable to give the hon. Member any undertaking as to legislation on the subject referred to in this question, but the matter will receive the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. MCLEOD: Is the matter under consideration?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, Sir.

  CARRICKMACROSS PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. JAMFS DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that Mr. J. T. Gibbings, J. P., and Mr. S. E. Shirley, J. P., acted together in hearing cases at Petty Sessions at Carrickmacross on 23rd July; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Gibbings is a rent collector for Mr. Shirley; (3) whether it is in accordance with the law for a landlord and rent collector to take part at same Petty Sessions as magistrates; and (4) whether be will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, that it may not occur again?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. There is no provision at law prohibiting principal and agent from acting together as magistrates, but there is a rule, founded on

  99
  grounds of policy, that they should not so act together, though the rule may, I understand, under special circumstances he subject to modification. There is no reason for questioning the bonâ fides of the magistrates in acting together in the present instance, but I see no objection to refer the matter to the Lord Chancellor with a view to his considering whether there were any circumstances justifying a departure from the rule on this occasion.

  ARMY OFFICERS (DRESS AND ACCOUTREMENTS.)
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why Officers were ordered to provide themselves with new swords some months since, and have now to obtain a serge jacket of novel pattern, and by such changes of dress and accoutrements have been put to considerable expense?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Officers were not required to provide new swords, but new sword-hilts, the change being made with the object of increasing efficiency. Officers are given time to wear out their present jackets before being required to possess themselves of the new and less expensive pattern.

  CHARGE OF PERJURY (COUNTY CORK).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can now state what decision he has come to relative to the prosecution of Dennis Dooling, of Walshtownbog, Midleton, County Cork, for perjury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): I have carefully examined the report of what took place at Presentment Sessions, and am of opinion that however suspicious the transaction may have been, there is no evidence available to sustain a prosecution against Dooling for perjury or fraud.

  DISPENSARY COMMITTEES (IRELAND).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board have yet
  100
  issued any Order fixing the rating qualification of members of dispensary committees pursuant to the recent Act; and, if not, when such an Order will be issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Order in question is in course of preparation and will be issued shortly.

  "PERSONAL CLERKS," CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. H. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large number of persons, styled "personal clerks" or "hired writers," not on the permanent establishment of the Civil Service, but appointed personally by Heads of Departments without examination, and whose salaries are paid out of an annual lump sum allowance placed at the disposal of such Heads, have been for several years past employed on purely clerical duties in various Government Departments, and on work which would appear to be of a strictly permanent character; whether, in relation to such employment, he has considered Paragraph 24 of the Treasury Minute of 10th August 1889, in which the system under which these men are employed is condemned: whether such employment is in pursuance of the above-named Treasury Minute (Paragraph 26), adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments; whether, before authorising the employment of personal clerks or hired writers in the manner above stated, he has satisfied himself that the work to be performed by them is of such a nature that it cannot fitly be provided for in the manner indicated in the said Minute; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with the view of ascertaining to what extent the provisions referred to in the said Minute have been carried out, and of limiting the employment of such personal clerks and hired writers to strictly temporary work which cannot be provided for in the manner indicated in the said Minute?
  SIR J. GORST (for Mr. HANBURY): My right hon. Friend asks me to say that he does not know if the Question is intended to include clerks in the offices of Solicitors to Public Departments. As to them he has nothing to add to his answer to the hon. Member on 12th May last. As regards the hon. Member's other Questions, my right hon. Friend is

  101
  not aware that persons are temporarily employed and paid as the hon. Member describes on work of a strictly permanent character. He does not consider that the Treasury Minute of 10th August 1889, forbids the employment of temporary personal clerks on work which is of a temporary character, or which is subject to such variations of amount as not to permit of a fixed permanent staff. Before sanctioning the employment of such persons, the Treasury require in each case to be satisfied that the work is such as has been described, so no further inquiry seems necessary.

  PUBLIC ABATTOIRS.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the danger to the public caused by the not infrequent escapes from control and rushes through the public thoroughfares of London of bullocks for slaughter, and in particular to such endangering of the public as took place in Harleyford Road on 3rd August, by a bull escaping from a slaughter-house and rushing through the streets; and whether he would, in consequence of these dangers to the public and for other sanitary reasons, consider the advisability of extending to local authorities further facilities for the erection of public abattoirs?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The attention of the President has not been previously called to cases in which danger was occasioned to the public by the escape of bullocks for slaughter, and he has no information as to what occurred in the Harleyford Road on the day referred to. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the provision made for the slaughter of cattle at the Metropolitan Cattle Market, and also of the fact that the driving of cattle in London between the hours of 10 in the morning and 7 in the evening is prohibited, except with the permission of the Commissioner of Police. The extension to local authorities in London of further facilities for the erection of public abattoirs would require legislation, and no promise can be given in the matter.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL (HORSHAM SITE).
  MR. J. YOXALL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner—(1) whether the Report of Mr. Rogers Field on the Horsham site for Christ's Hospital was treated as a private and confidential communication by the Almoners for above nine months; and (2) whether it had had due consideration by the Charity Commissioners before they authorised £20,000 to be expended on draining, roads, levelling, and planting?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Charity Commissioners have no information upon the point raised in the first paragraph of this Question. It relates to a matter of current administration in connection with the removal of the Hospital; and, as I stated in answer to a Question on July 28, the Commissioners are not charged with the duty of interfering in such matters. Mr. Rogers Field's Report was duly considered by the Commissioners before their sanction was given to the expenditure mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question. That Report, while condemning the then existing wells on the site, suggested a deeper boring. Some months before the Commissioners sanctioned the outlay referred to in the Question that boring had been sufficiently advanced to prove that a water suppty abundantly sufficient both in quantity and quality could be secured on the estate.

  AFRICAN FLORA.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if the duty of preparing works upon African flora was intrusted to Mr. Dyer, of Kew Gardens, nearly 20 years ago; whether he is aware that this gentleman has published practically nothing on the subject; and whether he will urge Mr. Dyer either to complete the work or to abandon it, so as no longer to discourage private enterprise in the same field?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKBES-DOUGLAS,): The third volume of the "Flora of Tropical Africa" was published in 1877. In 1891 the Treasury authorised the completion of the work,

  103
  in four more volumes, under Mr. Dyer, on the understanding that one volume would be published every two years. No further volume has yet been issued, although portions of one are in type. Mr. Dyer has been urged to complete the work as rapidly as possible.

  MAIL SERVICES (ENGLAND AND IRELAND).
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the reply of the Postmaster General to the deputation of the Irish Chambers of Commerce relative to the new mail service between England and Ireland is conclusive; and whether, in view of the great dissatisfaction caused in Ireland by that reply, the Post Office authorities will reconsider the question with a view to meeting the wishes of the Irish public?
  SIR J. GORST: The Postmaster General's reply to the deputation from the Irish Chambers of Commerce relative to the new mail service between England and Ireland was made after the fullest consideration, and, while regretting that the acceleration proposed does not fully meet the wishes of the public in Ireland, he sees no possibility of adopting a different time table for the night mail from that which has been announced.
  SIR T. ESMONDEasked when the resolution relating to the new mail service contract would be laid before Parliament?
  SIR J. GORST: I am a very indirect representative of the Postmaster General, and I fear I cannot give an answer.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the English mails have been late in their delivery at Tralee three times during the past week and ten times during the month of July; and whether, in view of the great and continual inconvenience cause to the people of Tralee and its neighbourhood by these constant delays in the delivery of the English mails, the Post Office authorities will invite the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to tender for an accelerated mail service to Tralee, permission being given them to stop the up and down mail trains at Mallow?
  SIR J. GORST: The Postmaster General is aware that there has been great irregularity of late in the delivery of the English mails at Tralee, as indicated in the Question of the hon. Member. Inquiry shall be made as to the possibility of effecting some improvement of the service to Tralee by way of Mallow, but the establishment of a new train specially for the mails would, it is feared, involve greater additional expense than could properly be incurred.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if complaints have been made to the Post Office authorities regarding the unsatisfactory arrangements in existence since the 1st of June last for the delivery of the morning mails at Portstewart, county Antrim; in view of the fact that the 6.30 a.m. mail train from Belfast, on the Northern Counties Railway, carries letters from Scotland and the various districts of Ireland to all the stations between Belfast and Derry, and is timed to reach Portstewart Station at 8.45 a.m., will he explain why the Portstewart letters and parcels are not delivered till after 12 o'clock noon; Does the railway company transfer the Portstewart mail bags from the mail train at Coleraine, and leave those mail bags to be conveyed to the Portstewart Station later in the day by a train which is not a mail train; is there any clause or condition in the contract with the Northern Counties Railway for the carriage of mails which enables that company to transfer mail bags from the principal mail train of the day, and leave those mail bags at intervening stations to be taken to their destination as the company may deem fit; is it legal to transfer mails in this way; and, considering the great inconvenience which the large number of summer visitors to Portstewart and the residents there suffer, will the Postmaster General remedy this grievance without delay?
  SIR J. GORST: The Postmaster General has received complaints of the late delivery of the morning mails at Portstewart since the 1st June. Portstewart is on a branch line, and the branch train in immediate connection with the 6.30 a.m. train from Belfast having ceased to call at Portstewart, a subsequent train was employed and the

  105
  arrival of the mails at Portstewart Station was postponed from 8.45 to 9.5 a.m. There was some further delay after arrival in sending the mails from the station to the Post Office in consequence of there being no tram car available until 9.30 a.m., and the delivery of the letters to the public was for a time not completed until about 12 noon. The transfer of the mails from the main line to the branch line takes place at Coleraine. The train on the branch line is not under the control of the Post Office, and the railway company have broken neither their contract nor the law in withdrawing the stop of the earlier train at Portstewart. Arrangements have been made for getting rid of the further delay after the arrival at Portstewart Station, and the delivery now commences at 9.45 a.m. and is completed by 11.20 a.m. or only 20 minutes later than formerly.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can arrange that the proposed Irish mail time table shall not be definitely settled until next Session: and, whether be is aware that recent investigations have shown that there is no practical difficulty in acceding to request of the recent deputation to the Postmaster General?
  SIR J. GORST: It would be impossible to make arrangements by the 1st April next for extending to the Irish provinces the advantages of the acceleration to commence on that date if the time table of the service between London and Dublin were not settled until next Session. The Postmaster General is not aware of any investigations which have shown that the request of the recent deputation could be acceded to without practical difficulty.
  MR. FIELDasked whether another deputation from the Irish Chambers of Commerce would be received, so that their views might be made known?
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will apply to the Postmaster General, I think he will find him ready to meet his wishes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What value are we going to receive for our £ 104,000 a year?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I am not intrusted with any information upon that point. (Laughter.)
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, regarding the acceleration of the Irish mail service, an agreement was discussed on the 27th May 1895, promising the arrangement asked for by the recent deputation to the Postmaster General?
  SIR. J. GORST: No, Sir. The Postmaster General is aware of no such discussion. On the 27th May 1895, a Question was put in this House respecting the agreement then just concluded with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, but no question was raised or promise given that the times desired by the recent deputation would be adopted. Indeed, so long previously as the 16th November 1894, it had been explained by the Postmaster General, at an interview with the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Cork and Belfast that, while he hoped to arrange for an acceleration of half an hour between Euston and Holyhead so far as the night mail was concerned, this would not mean more than five minutes' gain in the time of arrival in the morning at Holyhead, as it would be impossible to anticipate the present hours of departure of the night mails from Crewe and Chester without a dislocation of the mail service of the whole country. That position has never been departed from.

  NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the result of his inquiries as to the purchase of the Colonna Raphael?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject.

  KILBRIDE RIELE RANGE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the compensation money for the

  107
  Kilbride Rifle Range, which was taken from the owner compulsorily upon the 18th March, 1895, has yet been paid; if not, when will it be paid; whether, as The owner has lost the use and rents of the lands for 17 months, he will receive interest upon the compensation money until same is paid; and will he explain why the costs of the abortive arbitration and the costs of the legal proceedings subsequently, which the Courts awarded the owner, have not bean paid him?
  *MR. BRODRICK: An offer is about to be made to the owner of the ground, with an allowance both for interest and costs, and it is hoped that the matter may be settled immediately.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the matter would be settled before the end of the Session?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say. These things sometimes require a few days' consideration.

  MARRIAGES AT MALTA.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether he is aware that the Council of the Government in Malta have passed an Ordinance by which it is enacted that "marriages celebrated in Malta by all those who profess the Catholic religion, whether both the contracting parties be Catholic, or whether one of them be a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are not, and shall not be, valid if they are not celebrated according to the form established by the Council of Trent;" (2) whether such Ordinance was introduced with the concurrence of the Government, and was supported by the official members of the Council; and (3) whether, inasmuch as the Ordinance is opposed to the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which the question was referred by the Home Government, Her Majesty will be advised to withhold Her sanction from the Ordinance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative, and the answer to both branches of the second question is in the negative. The answer to the third question is that the matter is under the consideration of the Government.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSgave notice that he should call attention to the subject either on the Colonial Vote or on the Appropriation Bill.

  IMPERIAL TAXATION.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for the sake of enabling the tax payers to know the actual total of the amount raised in the way of Imperial taxation, he will, by means of a statement, appended to the final balance-sheet of the Budget of next Session, or otherwise, show the amounts received from taxation but not actually paid into the Treasury, and the corresponding grants in aid paid to local authorities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member will find the information he desires in the Return of Public Income and Expenditure annually moved for by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. The Return for 1895–6 is complete, and will be issued immediately.

  FIRE IN MAIL VAN (GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY, IRELAND).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, can he explain upon what principle the Postmaster General is considering the propriety of giving gratuities to certain persons who assisted in extinguishing the recent fire in a mail van on the Great Northern Counties Railway, Ireland, seeing that the Post Office is in no way responsible for the fire by which the mail van was consumed; how many claims have been lodged with the Company or the Post Office, or both, for compensation in this case, and what is the aggregate sum claimed up to the present time; and, has the Post Office, and not the railway company, paid all or any of those claims; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds?
  SIR J. GORST: Should the Postmaster General decide to give some gratuity to the persons who assisted in extinguishing the fire in the mail van on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member, he will do so on the principle that it is desirable

  109
  to encourage, efforts to save the mails I when in danger or to recover them if lost. About 50 claims have been lodged with the Postmaster General, and the aggregate amount may be roughly estimated at about £30. My right hon. Friend is not aware whether any separate demands for compensation have been made upon the railway company. The payments have been made by the Postmaster General in pursuance of the undertaking into which he has entered with the public to pay, as an act of grace, compensation for parcels and registered letters.

  TRANSIT OF LIVE STOCK BY RAIL.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communication from the railway managers in respect to the promised improvements for the more humane transit of live stock by rail?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): No, Sir, not yet.
  MR. FIELDasked for information as to the steps that were being taken by the railway companies.
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot expect the railway companies to give me information as to every stage of their proceedings.

  FAST LONDON WATER SUPPTLY.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest on a child held at Poplar on Monday last, when Dr. Cooper Harrison, the medical witness, attributed the existing prevalence of fatal cases of diarrhœa among children in the East End of London to the scanty supply of water, and also stated that in his own house the water was not turned on more than one hour a day, and that there was a filthy deposit in the water supplied; and whether, in these; circumstances, he will make further representations to the East London Water Company of the urgent necessity for improving both the quantity and the quality of the water which they are supplying to their customers?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The President has seen the report which has appeared in the newspapers of the inquest, and is aware of the statements of Dr. Harrison which are referred to in the Question. As regards the supply of water to Dr. Harrison's house, the President is informed by the East London Company that the supply of water was from 7 to 9 in the morning, and from 1 to 3 in the afternoon. This supply was for four hours, and he is unable to give any explanation of the supply being for less than six hours. With regard to the quality of the water, the company have forwarded samples of water which were yesterday drawn from the communication pipe supplying Dr. Harrison's house, and, so far as these samples are concerned, there is no evidence of any turbidity or other deposit in the water supplied, and the Local Government Board are not aware of any general complaint as to the quality of the water. As regards the prevalence of fatal cases of diarrhœa among young children in the East End of London, the President understands that the usual autumnal increase of diarrhœa has been somewhat exceptional this year, both in London and in many other towns. There is generally an exceptional increase when excess of temperature is combined with deficient rainfall, but there is no evidence to show that there is any increase in deaths from this cause in East London in consequence of the diminished supply of water in the district. Indeed, the published Returns for the last few weeks show that in certain divisions of London, and other towns where there has been no deficiency in the water supply, the increase in the number of deaths from diarrhœa has been greater than in the East district of the Metropolis The President has been in constant communication with the East London Water Company, and he has no reason to doubt that they are, fully realising the necessity of giving as large a quantity of water as the circumstances will admit.

  MALTON COUNTY COURT.
  MR. GRAKT LAWSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the Lord Chancellor will take steps to remedy the, great inconvenience caused by the fact that the Registrar of the Malton

  111
  County Court has left the district, and has appointed a deputy who is not resident therein?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The Lord Chancellor is in communication with the County Court Judge and the Registrar respecting the matter.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS COMMISSION.
  MR. LIONEL HOLLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was intended to exclude the Commission on Old-Age Pensions by the terms of reference to it from considering any scheme for pensions which are not directly contributed to by the people who are to enjoy them; and, whether he will consider the desirability of so enlarging the terms of reference as to empower the Commissioners, if they so desire, to take into consideration the proposals of Mr. Charles Booth and other schemes which demand only indirect contribution on the part of the pensioners?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It appears to us that the reference to the Commission is already wide enough to include the whole scope of the Inquiry which ought to be made. If, however, the Commissioners appeal to us and say that they are restricted by the reference, the question of reconsidering the reference will be carefully dealt with.

  EUROPEAN TROOPS IN INDIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee, next Session, to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Acts with reference to the British Army quartered in India?
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention had been called to the views repeatedly expressed by the Army Sanitary Commission, that the system of the Contagious Diseases Acts in India had proved a failure, and that its reinstitution could not consequently be advocated on sanitary grounds; and whether, considering these views and the strong opposition which existed to such measures on moral
  112
  grounds, the Government would direct the attention of the Indian authorities to the memoranda on the subject by the Army Sanitary Commission, and to the remedial measures suggested by them?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to the Question on the Paper, and that of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I have to say that there is no doubt as to the gravity of the present state of things. We understand that there is a dispute whether, and how far, this state of things is due to recent legislation. The Government will consider the propriety of an Inquiry, either by Committee or otherwise, to decide the controversy as to the facts.

  BRITISH TRADE.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if the attention of the Government has been directed to the suggestion made on Friday last by the late Prime Minister, the Earl of Rosebery, thatan Inquiry should be instituted, short, practical, and exhaustive, into the causes of the decline of British trade and the alarming increase of that of our foreign rivals, more particularly in the decline in the exports of British produce between 1872 and 1894 of £2 9s. 9d. per head of the population, and in the increase between 1883 and 1893 of 30 per cent. in the importation of German manufactured goods, and of £13,000,000 in the imports of foreign manufactured articles; and, if Her Majesty's Government will take steps in that direction, notwithstanding the industrial prosperity temporarily succeeding the recent years of acute depression?
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the annual average exports from Great Britain from 1885–89 were £226,000,000, whereas from 1890–91 they were £234,000,000; and, whether he is also aware that the average exports from Germany during the first period—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is quite out of order for an hon. Member to read out a number of extracts from Blue-books and ask a Minister whether he is aware of the facts contained in them
  SIR H. VINCENT: They are all wrong, Sir. [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The question of the amount of British as compared with foreign trade is being carefully watched by the Board Trade, who are engaged in collecting materials on the subject for publication. The colonial aspect of the question is being carefully examined into at the same time by the Colonial Office. Until we have the results of these investigations before us it would be premature to decide whether further inquiry is necessary or not.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a letter of Lord Rosebery's in this morning's papers, in which the writer says that his speech
  "was intended to arouse the attention of our commercial classes to the grave inroads which are being made on our commerce by Foreign Powers. What is really wanted is a small Commission of Inquiry."
  ["Order, order!"] Well, it is Lord Rosebery's.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should say that an inquiry could hardly be, in Lord Rosebery's words, at the same time short, practical, and exhaustive. If it were short it could hardly be exhaustive, and if exhaustive it could hardly be short. [Laughter.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: With reference to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to put down as the second Order of the day, I find on examination that the matter is of great importance to the Imperial Finance, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not bring it on later than 11 o'clock.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should be glad to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will do his best to help the Government to get through as many Votes as possible before that hour.
  SIR E. ASIIMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to take the Colonial Vote to-night or to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think there are other Votes
  114
  which precede the Colonial Vote. I hope there will be time to discuss all the Votes.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: My question was whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to take the Colonial Vote to-night or to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not propose to take any Votes to-morrow. With regard to to-morrow the first Order of the day will of course be the West Highland Railway Guarantee Bill, and after that I propose to put down Measures which I hope will be regarded as uncontroversial.
  MR. MCLEOD: I think only one night has been given to the Scotch Votes. I should be glad to know when the remainder will be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope we may get through the very few remaining Scotch Votes to-night.
  *SIR C. DILKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the Military Lands Bill is to be withdrawn?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have very little hope that that Bill can be taken in the course of the present Session.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: May I ask whether the London University Commission Bill will be proceeded with to-night or at all?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Certainly not to-night; and as rumour has reached me of opposition to the Bill, I do not myself entertain any very lively hope that it can be proceeded with.

  SOUTH AFRICA COMMITTEE.
  MR J. H. DALZIELasked whether the Motion to nominate the South African Committee would be taken to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid it would not be taken tonight or to-morrow.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has taken note of the fact that there is only one Irish Member nominated on this Committee, and

  115
  whether the nearest proportion to which the Irish Party are entitled is two? I would also ask whether one Member has been deducted from the Opposition or from the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: From the Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Whips of the Irish Party have consented to this arrangement?
  MR. JOHN DILLONrose to ask a further Question, when
  *MR. SPEAKER said: This is raising a Debate on a subject which can be discussed when the names of the Committee are submitted to the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether there should not be an original Motion put from the Chair that the Committee should consist of 15 Members, so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of moving an Amendment with a view to increasing the number?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I believe precedent has been strictly followed. When the Committee about to be nominated does not exceed 15 Members, it is not usual to specify the number.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether it would be in order to move at the commencement, when the Motion came on, that this Committee do consist of 17 Members?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any Amendment of that kind.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: With notice it can be done?
  *MR. SPEAKER: With notice the hon. Member can propose to add other Members, if the House increases the number of the Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I suppose the Government would have no objection, in view of the importance of this Committee, to postpone the consideration of it until Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not propose to take it tonight if it is seriously opposed.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask you, Sir, whether it will not be open to any hon. Member to propose the addition of any names to the Committee?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of such a Motion, as I have said.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (TWENTY-FIRST ALLOTTED DAY.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will he charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897,"—
  * CAPTAIN CECIL NORTONmoved to reduce the Vote by £50, explaining that his real desire was to see it increased by many thousands. His contention was that the Government was bound to lead the way as a model employer of labour. On the 8th of August 1890, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, then Leader of the House, said:
  "In common with all who are responsible for the Government of the country he regarded it as a matter of the highest importance that the men who are employed in Her Majesty's dockyards and arsenals should he well paid and con-tented. He was sure that the House of Commons would not desire to underpay any servants of the Crown."
  In the discussion on Mr. Buxton's Motion in 1891, Mr. Plunket announced
  "that the Government would insert a provision in Government contracts to secure the payment by contractors of the rates of wages generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."
  His contention was that the Government, while perceiving the mote that was in the contractor's eye, had failed to cast the beam out of their own eye. They compelled contractors to pay standard rates of wages to their workmen, whereas, when they employed these men directly they failed to pay their rates of wages. What was the current rate, of

  117
  wages for the class of work done by those workmen at Woolwich, whose case he desired to bring before the Committee? They might be termed unskilled labourers, but as a matter of fact, they were to a certain extent skilled, and did practically the same class of labour as the men who worked for the firm of Armstrong, of Newcastle, or Mather and Platt, of Manchester. He maintained that 22s. per week at Newcastle, and 23s. per week at Manchester, was far superior to 24s. at Woolwich. Yet the Government of the wealthiest country in the world, with a revenue of a hundred millions sterling, was paying its employés at Woolwich 19s. 6d. a week. There was a law in this country that no man should be allowed to starve. They ought to go a step further and lay it down that no competent workman who was willing to work should be employed at less than a fair wage. He ought not to be employed at starvation wages, and he maintained that a large number of Government workmen are employed at starvation wages. It was constantly stated that this was a question of supply and demand. But the Government had stultified themselves twice over in connection with this point: for they were at the present moment employing at 19s. 6d. a number of men who, four or five years ago were doing precisely the same work for 17s., and who some years previously were doing it for 15s. But suppose it was a question of supply and demand, surely it would be only fair to apply the principle all round. Why not, for example to the Treasury Bench? There were doubtless many gentlemen opposite, even below the Gangway, who would be prepared to hold many of their offices at a considerably reduced salary. Or take the case of the officers of the Army, whose pay had not been increased for some generations. There were hundreds of young men, not inferior in any respect to their predecessors, presenting themselves for about a hundred vacancies. Had the British taxpayer ever suggested that the pay of the officers of the Army should be reduced? Certainly not. The British taxpayer was prepared to pay top wages for the best material; be was well aware that it was economy in the end. Whether on moral or economic grounds, it was good policy to pay the standard rate
  118
  of wages. Public bodies and private employers alike had found that the best standard for the current rate of wages was the trades union rate. A report on this subject, published in 1893, showed that the Woolwich Local Board paid 24s. and Plumstead Board of Works, 24s., while private employers there paid practically the same rate; whereas the Government rate was 19s. 6d. House rent in Woolwich was 8s. and 8s. 6d., whereas in Chatham it was only 4s. 6d., in Pembroke, 3s., and in Portsmouth, 4s.; in other words, 19s. was just as good in Pembroke as 24s. in Woolwich. He had fixed on 24s. because a Minority Report of the Labour Commission laid that down as the minimum sum upon which a man, his wife, and family could live in common decency. That a public servant should not be entitled to a decent house and sufficient food in a country like this was monstrous. He frankly admitted that there were certain advantages connected with Government employment. The Government never went bankrupt, and there was a certain prestige attaching to Government employment, but putting that aside there was no other advantage whatever. Continuity of employment was given equally in good private establishments, and the prospect of advancement was as great in them as in Government factories. It was supposed that Government employés obtained a larger proportion of holidays, but that was not the case. The men in the Royal factory were in no better position than the men who worked for the best private firms. As regards sick pay, what was the position of the Government employés? They must serve three years before they became entitled to that pay, and then they were entitled to two months' sick pay during the year. Contrast this with the position of a member of a really good friendly society. After six months' payments, the payee became entitled to 12s. a week for 26 weeks, and 6s. per week for 52 weeks after that. Further, in the event of his death, his widow became entitled to a bonus of £10, and he would receive £5 if his wife died. Consequently, for 6d. a week men could provide themselves with greater advantages than were given by the Government. Of course, there was the question of medical attendance, and he was given

  119
  to understand that this cost the Government 1s. per week. But why should the men be penalised because the Government managed so badly, when they could contract with any good friendly society for the sum of 6d.? There was, he presumed, a general desire for some system of superannuation, and personally he was strongly in favour of that. He should have supposed that Members occupying the other side of the House, who had so strongly advocated both old-age pensions and workmen's dwellings, would be equally in favour of that. He would be glad to see it applied the whole country over, but until that could be done, let it apply to Government employés. Then, as to injury pay. Any man injured in the course of his employment was entitled to full pay for three months, and while under the doctor's care; but, on the other hand, the Government contracted themselves out of the Employers' Liability Act, and no compensation was paid to the relatives of a man fatally injured. It would be said that the Government did all it could for the willows, but that amounted to getting employment such as bag-making out of charity, but the widow had no claim against the Government. When a man was injured during his employment, and the injury was not due to his own negligence, the sufferer should be generously treated, it being borne in mind that unless assisted he would ultimately come upon the rates. He estimated that it would cost about £30,000 additional to act in common justice towards these labourers in Government employ, raising the wages to 24s., the current rate in the London area. The workmen at Woolwich were at a disadvantage as compared with those in the employment of private firms in that they were bound to keep up what might be called an appearance of sham respectability, and so it was found that, after these regular hours of employment, some of them eked out their wretched wages by costermongering. He would venture to read an extract from a gentleman who was an ornament of the Church to which he belonged, the rector of Woolwich:—
  "I feel very strongly that sixpence per hour for a week of 48 hours is the minimum you can call a fair wage in the County of London. The claim as to privileges is nonsense."
  120
  A statement drawn up by the same authority gave facts that would enable the Committee to realise their position. A labourer earned 20s. a week and had to support a wife and two children. For two rooms he paid 4s. a week, and his weekly expenditure on meat was 2s. 6d. On this he performed exhausting physical labour, helping to make that material without which our defensive forces would be valueless. Thirty millions annually were spent on these defensive forces, and this man, engaged in the work of providing the material, was confined to 2½d. worth of meat per day. It should be remembered that in Woolwich workmen had not the advantage of cheap markets workmen had elsewhere, and on a fair estimate it might be said that 24s. a week in Woolwich was equal to 20s. in Portsmouth. Woolwich was one of those places indicated by Mr. Booth as the darkest spots in England. With these men in a position oscillating between independence and pauperism, their wives and daughters were situated amid all the allurements of a garrison town, surrounded by temptations to drink and immorality. This was a state of things that should not exist in connection with Government employment. Many years ago, upon the discussion of the ten hours' Bill, a great writer who had shed lustre on the literature of his country made use of the following words:—
  "It concerns the commonwealth that the great hotly of the people should not live in a way which makes life wretched and short, which enfeebles the body and pollutes the mind;"
  and, paraphrasing that, he concluded his appeal to the Government by saying it was their duty so to act that every class in the community might at least be afforded the opportunity of living in a way which made life brighter and longer, which invigorated the body and purified the mind. He moved the reduction of the vote by £50.
  *Colonel HUGHESsaid he did not think it was the fault of the Government that the War Department were not liable for injuries under the Employers' Liability Act, for, if he rightly remembered, when the last Bill on the subject was going forward, the Government assented to a clause imposing that liability, and, no doubt, when an amending Bill was again before

  121
  Parliament, they would again assent. He thoroughly believed that the Financial Secretary to the War Office desired that the labourers should be paid the wages current in the district, but 5d. an hour was not the current rate. Local information would convince the hon. Gentleman of that. When the hours of labour in the arsenal were reduced by the late Secretary for War, it was stated that this should not affect the rate of pay. A comparison was sometimes made between the wages paid in Newcastle and the wages paid in London. He was quite willing to reckon at the former rate, if a proper allowance were made for the increased rent in London. The rent question must be taken into account, since there was an Act of Parliament to forbid overcrowding. If there were a desire to pay the current rate of wages, let the Government find out what it was. A year or two ago the Labour Department of the Board of Trade was instructed to find out the current rate for unskilled labourers at Woolwich, among others. No doubt that Report was confidential, but in 1896 a Report was presented to the House for the year 1894, and from the figures quoted he was sure that the Labour Department must have reported that the current rate was 6d. to 6½d. an hour for unskilled labourers. If that was so the Report had not been acted up to. As to the men above or below the full age, he did not press; but with regard to fully competent unskilled workmen, the Government must say whether they thought 20s. a week a sufficient wage. The right hon. Member for Stirling, when Secretary of State for War, said that the Government were anxious to avoid any act or omission which would betoken indifference to the welfare of the workmen, or which could be quoted by private employers as a justification for illiberal dealings with their workmen. In 1893, speaking on the question of sweating, the present Financial Secretary to the War Office said: "This is a national question with which no parish can adequately deal. It is one with which the Government alone can cope." He went down to the arsenal the other day and made inquiries of the contractors, Messrs. Johnson, who were acting under the Fair Wages Resolution. They had 60 labourers who were paid
  122
  6½d. an hour now, though formerly 6d. an hour was the rate. That made 27s. for a week of 50 hours, and side by side with the men receiving that wage, were the men from the arsenal earning only 20s. a week. If a Fair Wages Resolution were forced on the contractors, it ought at least to be observed by the Government themselves. At the time of the General Election, the Leader of the House issued a programme of Unionist policy to his Manchester constituents, Paragraph 13 of which was "Fair wages to Government workmen." He copied that paragraph into his own programme, thinking that it would be safer to do so; and he felt that that was a pledge on his part. But the present Government had been in Office 18 months, and, as private Members' time had been taken away they were powerless. He should certainly vote in favour of the Motion, if he felt it necessary to enforce a proper sense of responsibility in this matter on the War Office; but he understood that the Government were willing to give attention to the matter. If a Committee were appointed now, nothing could be done this Session. But if no steps were taken before next Session to remedy the grievance, he should feel justified in calling attention to Paragraph 13 of the First Lord of the Treasury's programme, and in moving for the appointment of a Committee. His political existence depended upon his performing his promises to his constituents, and he should endeavour to fulfil them.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,)said that the Government approached this subject with no adverse or hostile spirit. In cases of this kind it was much easier to say yes than no. But the Government and Parliament were trustees of the taxpayers' money, and they were not entitled to spend it without sufficient cause being shown. Was the Government, then, required to pay a practically settled rate of wages, or was it required to pay the wages which were current in each particular district? If the Government paid a rate of wages which was higher than the current rate of wages given in the district the difference must be made up by somebody, and obviously it must be by the taxpayers of the country.

  123
  That was to say, they were going to take taxes paid, say, by a Dorsetshire labourer receiving 14s. a week, in order to enhance the wages of a certain class of workmen in London, and those by no means the worst off. If they were to adopt a principle of that kind they would very soon hear from the Dorsetshire labourer, who would want to know when his turn was coming. The question between them was whether or not they were paying the current wage in the district. Now, the Member for Woolwich had cited the case of Messrs. Johnson. There could not be a better case to show that in dealing with matters of this kind they must be extremely cautious to compare things which were actually on the same basis. When they spoke of 24s. or 20s. a week, they must ask for what it was paid and the conditions under which the service was given. Now, what was the answer in regard to Messrs. Johnson? They informed him that the number of men employed by them varies from time to time. The men work 50 hours a week for 40 weeks, and they get 27s. a week; they work 47 hours a week for six weeks, and they get 25s. 5d.; and they work 44 hours a week for six weeks, and they get 2.3s. 10d. But mark the class of labourers these were. They were men of a selected class. For what did Messrs. Johnson say:—
  "Those who received 6½d. an hour cannot fairly he described as unskilled. They must he good navvies or excavators or bricklayers' labourers, accustomed to scaffolding work, men of superior physique, and of considerable experience, and who find their own picks and shovels. Ordinary labourers would get 6d. only and even these must he full-grown, active men."
  These men did not compare in any degree with the lowest class of labourers employed at the, Ordnance factories. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not! Because they are a selected, skilled class.
  MR. E. H. PICKEBSGILL: Not those paid 6d.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, they are selected in regard to strength, age, and experience. And if they went to a class of men of that kind, he said at once that they had plenty of them employed at Woolwich, but they were not men receiving 20s. or 24s. a week, but
  124
  men receiving wages fully equivalent to the wages stated by Messrs. Johnson to be paid by them.
  MR. T. LOUGH: The hon. Gentleman has read out that ordinary labourers receive 6d.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The point is not as to the detail of the payment, but the class of men employed, and what I say is that where we have labourers of that character we pay a great deal more than the maximum wage of 20s. a week. The wages paid by the Woolwich Local Board had been cited. He knew that that Board were paying 24s. a week, but what for? The men in the employment of the Woolwich Local Board worked 48 hours a week for five months, and 56½ hours for seven months, so that they worked on an average all the year round 53 hours per week. Now, 24s. per week for 53 hours was 21s. 9d. a week for 48 hours. Therefore, it would be seen that the Woolwich Local Board paid its men 24s. a week under conditions far more onerous than those under which the employés at the Ordnance factories worked. But take the case a little further. He had made careful inquiry as to the wages paid in the Woolwich district; and it resulted in this, that unquestionably, when the privileges and advantages of the Ordnance factory labourers of the lowest class were taken into account, the sum which they received weekly was fully equal to that which they would get in private employment. He had before him the names of ten firms, the largest employers of labour in the district. The first thing that came out was that the men who were in the service of these private contractors did not work 48 hours a week as the ordnance factory hands did, but 54 hours, and they worked without any of the privileges which were enjoyed in the Government establishment. He would take the case of an employer "D," which looked, on the face of it, against himself. "D" employed his men for 54 hours a week, and he paid them £1 7s. But a man was not kept if he was not considered worth the money. ["Hear, hear!"] What did that show? It showed that this was a selected class of labourer, whereas in the Ordnance factory, he was not dealing with a selected class of labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "You

  125
  ought to!"] Take, again, the case of "F." They worked their labourers for 54 hours a week, and they paid a guinea; and they stated that they had no difficulty whatever in getting labour at that rate. A guinea for 54 hours was 18s. 8d. for 48 hours, and there was not a man in Government employment who was not getting more than 18s. 8d. It was further shown that the men working 54 hours a week at 24s. must be labourers of a particular skilled class, required to perform certain work, and when their wages were worked out they came at 48 hours to 21s. 3d. Another point which should not be forgotten was that the occupation of the Government workmen was continuous. Dealing with the case as it actually existed at the Ordnance factory, he said that the question of the minimum rate of wages affected a comparatively few men. The figures which he would quote to the Committee were given on the assumption that the privileges which those men enjoyed would work out to the value of 6d. per week. He believed that in the time of the late Government a careful investigation was instituted, with the result that the subject was examined over three consecutive years. The privileges worked out in one year at 11d., the following year at about 10d., and in another year to something over 1s. But taking the figure at 6d. in connection with the question of privileges, he showed that there were four-and-a-half days full pay for holiday, medical attendance to which the men were entitled, sick pay if a man served three years, and a gratuity of £1 for every year's service after the completion of seven years. There were 428 skilled labourers and 645 unskilled labourers who nominally received pay of less than 24s. per week. Of the 428 labourers, 242 received pay equivalent to 23s. 6d. a week, assuming that the advantages were worth 6d. He was speaking of the Ordnance factories as a whole. There were eight who received 28s., 17, 22s. 6d., 64 22s., 97 21s. 6d.; it would thus be seen that only a small portion of 160 were receiving less than 22s. 6d. a week. This was skilled labour, but it should be borne in mind that among the skilled men there were some boys who remained on because they had not got any other service to go to, and
  126
  they could earn a fair wage. Of the 645 labourers less than 100 of them received less than 21s. on the calculation that the privileges were worth 6d. a week; 117 received 23s., 111 received 22s. 6d., and 318 received 21s. 6d. Thus, when the hon. Member who moved this Resolution spoke of 24s. a week, he would see that the Government was not very far off his ideal after all. The whole question was whether, according to what was ascertained to be the current rate in the district, the Government ought to go beyond that sum. In 1894 the late Government went carefully into the question; they examined the case as he had examined it for himself. They endeavoured to ascertain accurately what was the current rate in the district, and, satisfied that the Government rate was somewhat below the current rate, they raised the Government rate to what they believed from the evidence to be the current rate paid in the district. The question now was: "Has the current rate in the district of Woolwich changed since 1894, when the late Government came to the conclusion that the level to which they raised their wages satisfied that current rate?" Having most carefully looked into the question, he failed to get evidence which convinced him that, all things taken into account, the Government was not still paying what was the current rate in the district. But he was authorised by the Secretary of State for War to say a good deal more than that. The Secretary of State had himself given personal attention to the matter, and he was perfectly willing to receive any communication that could be made to him upon it. It was said that the Secretary of State had declined to receive a deputation which the Woolwich Local Board wished to send him in relation to the wages paid in the Ordnance factory. The Committee, however, would remember that when the Woolwich Local Board asked the Secretary of State to pay 24s. a week to the lowest class of labourer they were asking the Secretary of State to do that which they did not do themselves. The Woolwich Local Board were only paying 21s. 9d. for 48 hours, though it was true that they were paying 24s. for 53 hours. If the Woolwich Local Board was held out as a model for the Government to follow in relation to wages, it was but fair to

  127
  ask: "Who elects the Woolwich Local Board?" There were 15,000 artisans in the employment of the Government at Woolwich, and these men elected the Local Board; and he doubted whether any rate of wages which the Woolwich Local Board chose to pay must be accepted by the Government, because the men would be practically fixing their own wages. The Government must do what it required its contractors to do. [Cheers.] If it required its contractors to pay the current rate of wages in the district, it must also pay the current rate. ["Hear, hear!"] The only point was the question of fact. The evidence in his possession tended to show that the Government were doing this, but if that evidence could be shaken by any which the hon. Member for Woolwich or West Newington, or others could produce showing that the Government were not paying the current rate of wages for the Woolwich district, he said on behalf of the War Department and the Secretary of State, that the wages of the artisans in the ordnance factory should be raised to that level.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if this question had sprung up for the first time that day, the promise of the hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory. This subject had, however, been going on for years, and as far as the present Government were concerned the question had been going on for months. The facts had been placed before the Government repeatedly. Deputations had waited upon Members of the Government, and others had been wishful to wait upon them, but unfortunately had not been received in the ordinary way. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Congress, for example, had proposed to send a deputation.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid that that was so, but the Secretary of State thought that no advantage would be gained by his consenting to receive the deputation. He explained, however, that if those who proposed to wait upon him would lay before him in writing what they had to say, he would give their representations his careful consideration.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that it seemed as if the belated assurance now given by the Government had only been given
  128
  because they were afraid of the opposition of their own supporters. There was a tendency on the part of the Government to force contractors under the Fair Wages Resolution to give better terms to those whom they employed than were given by the Government themselves. The hon. Member had at last given a satisfactory assurance upon that point, recognising that the Government must pay in future the rates of wages which they imposed upon their own contractors. That principle, however, had been violated in the past, and was, he feared, being violated at the present time. In the particular case under discussion, fair wages were not being paid to those whom the hon. Member had called the lowest class of labourers in the Ordnance Department. He agreed that workmen ought not to use their electoral power for the purpose of obtaining what the Financial Secretary for War termed a disproportionate advance in wages. In this case, however, the men received only 20s. a week, which did not amount to a fair wage, and it could not be said that they were using electoral power to obtain a disproportionate advance. The Financial Secretary bad argued that in considering this question they must take hours of labour into consideration as well as wages. But regard ought also to be paid to the conditions of existence in the locality where the workmen were employed, and house rent in Woolwich and Plumstead was very high indeed, there being parts of London where rents were less high. The very high rents in Woolwich had led to a general rise in wages, with which, however, the wages paid by the Government had not kept pace. The question of the value of the privileges accorded to the men in the lowest class of labour had been discussed at a meeting of Members and men, and the former had satisfied themselves that the workmen's statement was true, that an ordinary sound friendly society-would confer upon them the privileges which they obtained from the Government for a considerably smaller sum than 6d. per week. The men whom he had seen who performed this lowest class of labour were a remarkably good looking set, and he could not help thinking that the Government were very lucky to get the services of such men for the rate of wages paid. Some of these men were

  129
  doing extra work which the Government would not wish them to do in order to eke out a livelihood. He and other hon. Members were shocked and horrified when they learnt the means by which some of these men earned what was necessary in order that they might keep up the appearance which the Department demanded of them. The Financial Secretary had said that the wages of these men were raised some years ago by the late Government. Since that time, however, there had been a rise in the local rate of wages, amounting probably to 6d. a week. The Government, they were told, had appealed to the Labour Department to advise them upon this question. The advice given them had not been made public, and he inferred from that that the Report of the Department was not favourable to their view, and showed that in the case of this lowest class of labour they were not paying the current rate of wages in the district. He had made inquiries, and had only succeeded in hearing of one case, in which a small number of men were concerned, and in which the rate paid was as low as the rate paid by the Government.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid he had a Return compiled by the Board of Trade giving the wages paid in London and the rates recognised by the National Association of Master Builders. A footnote was added by the Board of Trade to the effect that the comparison was not an exact one, because the latter 'only affected bricklayers' labourers, whereas the Return from the Department referred to were classes of ordinary labour.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid he was familiar with that Return, but he understood that the Government promised to inquire into this specific question through the Labour Department, and he asked whether that Department had or had not told them they were paying the current rate?
  MAJOR HENRY BOWLESsaid there were one or two points which he thought the Committee should take into consideration before they determined this question. The Financial Secretary had tried to make the Committee believe that Government workmen were in a better position than workmen in the employ of private firms. That was really a fallacy. They had to
  130
  deal with this question from the living point of view. The number of hours of work might be so curtailed that the workmen could not make a proper livelihood. That was the state of affairs in the Government factory in his constituency. They had had very slack times, and the number of hours, instead of being 48 in the week, were often considerably less, and the men, in his judgment, were not able to earn a sufficient livelihood. Now that the Government only gave a gratuity after a man had worked seven years of £1 for every year of work and no pension, it was absolutely necessary, in settling the rate of wages, that the amount of money it was necessary for a man to put by should be considered. The Financial Secretary also said that one of the advantages of Government employment was that it was continuous. It was simply surprising to note the number of periods of slackness which the Government factory in his constituency had gone through. He felt that the Government ought to do a little more than merely pay the lowest rate of wages given in a particular locality. He thought the Government ought to set an example to other employers, and give a fair wage to the lowest labourer in their employ. It was urged, also, that Government employés had the services of a doctor, but he knew many cases in which the men had sought other advice because they had no faith in the medical officer appointed by the Government, and therefore that advantage must be discounted to that extent. He denied that the Government did give continuous employment. If a factory was shut for stock-taking purposes, the men were not allowed to make up the loss at other times, and where a man was only receiving a wage that just enabled him to maintain himself and his family, it was very hard on him to be told that the factory must be shut for so many days. Admiralty men were entirely differently treated. They received a pension when they reached a certain age; but the War Office simply paid the current rate of wages, and the men received nothing but the gratuity he had spoken of. He therefore thought it was wrong to contend that men working under such conditions were better off than those working for private firms.
  MR. PICKERSGILLcontended that the Government ought to be in the first flight of employers, and that their employés ought to be the best men of their class. The Financial Secretary had referred to the question of hours of work. No one recognised the value of the eight hours' day more than he did, but if the price of it was to be the reduction of wages below the point at which a family could be maintained in decency, then it might be dearly purchased. The whole case of the Financial Secretary was that the men at Woolwich were now suffering for having acquired the eight hours' day. If that was so, it was distinctly contrary to the pledge given by the Government. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was of a type with which the Committee was familiar. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of obtaining men at a lower rate, and told the Committee that they were trustees for the public. So they were, but they were also employers for the public, and as employers for the public they should treat their workmen exactly as they required contractors employed by them to treat their workmen. It seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman failed to grapple with the case put before him of the contractor at Woolwich. He made no distinction between the case of the men receiving 6½d. an hour and those receiving only 6d. He would cite the case of a great company, though he did not consider them model employers. He referred to the London and St. Katharine's Dock Company. There was a meeting of that Company the other day, and the Chairman spoke of the relations of the Company with their workmen. This dock Company had recently reorganised their labour system, and instead of having a floating staff, they now had a permanent staff. That Company had over 3,000 seamen; it paid them 24s. a week with half pay for sickness; and they were entitled to a fair pension. The Government ought to be ashamed to employ its workmen on terms less favourable than those given by a dock company. He thought they had a right to complain of the substance of the Government reply, and hoped the matter would be pressed to a Division.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the House would readily
  132
  understand that they did not minimise the importance of this question. It was a disagreeable task even to seem for a moment to resist an appeal of this kind. To comply with the request now made would bring popularity to any Government. But the sufferers from such a course would be that wider public for whom after all they were the trustees. He was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject would feel that the general policy of the Government was one which they might and ought to accept. They held in the strongest way that the Government should be a model employer of labour. [Cheers.] They did not think it the business of the Government to initiate great changes in regard to the labour market, but in any district where there were Government works the Government should be able to say, "We treat our workmen as the good employer in this district does and would do." These were the principles they had always laid down; these were the principles they desired most earnestly to carry out. With regard to the particular question of Woolwich, he could assure the Committee that the departments concerned had done their best to discover what was the current rate of wages for the various classes of employment in which they were concerned. Not only would the Government be ready to receive and consider any representations which might be brought before them tending to show that the judgment they had formed on the question was an erroneous judgment, but they would certainly regard it as their duty to employ all official means at their command to discover for themselves, even apart from such representations, what was the state of wages that ought to be paid to the unskilled and other workmen in the employment of the State. He hoped that policy would commend itself to both sides and would satisfy the Committee that the Government were not backward in carrying out views which they held, not as distinguished from their predecessors, but in common, he believed with all Governments. If he was right in thinking that perhaps he had satisfied the Committee as to the general excellence of the intentions of the Government, they might now be

  133
  satisfied with the discussion that had taken place and proceed to the other Votes. ["Hear!"]
  MR. LOUGHsaid that he had heard but one statement from the right hon. Gentleman with undisguised satisfaction—that this was not a question which affected one party more than another. He regretted the conclusion at which the Government had arrived. This question affected the lowest paid labourers in the Government service. While the State treated its highly paid officials well it treated the poor humble labourer in a shabby niggardly fashion. The Government had mixed up the question of wages and hours. Make these men work 50 or 52 hours, but give them the 24s. They had evidence on the question of hours from the late Government. Did the present Government go back from the statement of the late Secretary for War, that as the result of the experiment of a 48 hours week at Woolwich, they found that as much work and better work was done as had formerly been done in 52 or 53 hours. If they still adhered to that policy the question of hours did not arise. The plea he put forward was that a man could not live in London on less than 24s., and therefore the sum should be paid to adult labourers. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary was only able to mention one case where an employer refused this claim to pay 24s. a week. The case mentioned was not a representative case, and so far as Woolwich and London generally were concerned the evidence was clearly against the position the Government had taken up. Speaking broadly, it was a rule that would be accepted by any right-minded employer, that the minimum wage of an adult workman must not be less than 24s.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I stated that I had received replies from many large employers in Woolwich district, and in no instance were they paying 24s. for a week of 48 hours.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. Gentleman was again mixing up the question of hours and wages. If it was necessary that in order to pay their labourers 24s. the Government should work them 52 hours, then in God's name give them the wages and work them the extra hours. It was the opinion of the late Secretary
  134
  of State however, that they got as good work in 48 hours as in 52, and they might as well give the 24s. for the smaller number. The hon. Gentleman asked for what was the 24s. paid. It was paid in order to enable a workman and his wife and family to live decently. The payment was not made as a bribe to some unfortunate fellow to come in and do the work for less, it was payment to enable a man to live, because it was the lowest at which he could live considering the whole question of London expenses. There was no need to make this a party question, let it be left for the decision of the House. The Government had suffered defeat in another place this week, and this would be a good point upon which to defeat them in the House of Commons. It would do no harm to this Government or the next. This appeal was made on behalf of some 1,000 or 1,100 men, the amount of money involved was not large, it was a righteous claim, he hoped it would be pressed to a division and would be largely supported from the other side of the House.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid, in reply to the Leader of the House, that he had no desire to trespass on the time of the Committee, but would venture to make this one remark, that he had had nothing definite in reply to his appeal. He had laid clearly before the Committee the state of affairs at Woolwich, that there were men employed at 20s. a week who had to pay 8s. of that for house rent, and therefore had to support themselves, their wives and families upon 12s. a week. This was a degrading state of things. As to the comparison with the Dorset labourer with 10s. or 12s. a week, he at least had a roof over his head. If there was a definite promise in regard to a definite number of these Woolwich labourers he would be satisfied.
  COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid the question before the Committee was whether the Government paid or would consent to pay the rate of wages current in the district, and he confessed that a short time before he had considerable sympathy with hon. Members opposite, but the hon. Member (Mr. Lough), after promising not to introduce politics, trespassed considerably in that direction. He could not help thinking that the offer made by the Leader of the House

  135
  was one that could not fairly be refused, and, though he sympathised with the the object of the hon. Member for Newington, he could not, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, vote for the Motion if it was carried to a Division. The promise had been made on behalf of the Government to make inquiries and receive every representation, and if it was proved that the current rate of wages was below the rate current in the district the rate should be raised, and he had no doubt the Government were earnest in this matter.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPEthought the Government had not taken up a very distinguished or dignified position by the promise they had made. They should not lag behind waiting to see what private employers paid, and then, after pressure in the House, and having examples thrust upon them, making a virtue of necessity, grant the concession. He desired to meet the question from the ordinary Trades Union point of view. He represented a constituency in which the labour feeling was very strong, and the prevalent opinion in labour circles—and he believed a perfectly justifiable feeling—was this: that the Government were bound to set an example in this matter and be, if possible, in advance of private firms, for the Government were the largest employers of labour in the country. Generally speaking, the ordinary artisan would consider this from a broad standpoint. He would say:—
  "Here at one end of the scale are Ministers and high officials receiving enormous salaries and at the bottom are these unfortunate labourers at Woolwich Arsenal receiving a very poor wage for their work, and he would say, if England is rich enough to pay Ministers, Judges, and public officers at this high rate—and it was right they should be so paid—then surely the country is rich enough to pay a living wage to these poor labourers."
  That would be the view taken by the ordinary artisan. The Leader of the House was known to be in general sympathy with what were called humanitarian views, and did he not think that the Government should be in a position where they could not be assailed for paying less wages than county councils and other popularly elected bodies paid to their servants? If the right hon. Gentleman thought the Government could afford to take an inferior position
  136
  to these public bodies, could afford to say "We will pay starvation wages to the humbler class of our servants, and pay extravagantly high the higher branches of service," then assuredly he would have a stern account to render to the country when the day of reckoning came. This was no matter for Party recrimination. The Tory Party, no more than the Liberal Party desired, to have Government labourers underpaid, and all that was required was that the House of Commons should have the courage of its opinions, and declare that the humbler employés of the State should receive a fair, a just, a living wage. Anything short of that would be disastrous to our political system and disgraceful to the State.
  *COLONEL HUGHESsaid that, as the Local Board of Health of Woolwich had been referred to, and as that was a body of whom he had had long experience and had great respect, he wished to explain that, after the Royal Commission in 1890 reported in favour of all municipal bodies taking precaution to insure the payment of wages at reasonable rates, the Board raised the wages of its employés to 24s., and as a matter of fact the situation became thus, that the men who swept the streets got wages of 24s. while of the men who paid the rates many only received 20s. a week. Naturally this created a little jealousy. Surely the labourer in the arsenal was not of a lower character than that of sweeping the streets. He could not admit that it was any justification for the Government that some firms paid at a lower rate than the Government rate. The Government should set the example for a fair rate. He could not but contrast the manner in which the subject was treated by the War Department with the more generous spirit that attended the administration of Naval matters. In the Inquiry to which reference had been made, the Department would be judge in its own case. On a previous occasion inquiries of this nature were undertaken by the Board of Trade, and if the Leader of the House would give an assurance that a similar policy should be adopted, and that the Labour Department of the Board of Trade should advise the War Department as to the proper rate of pay, it was an offer that should

  137
  be accepted, but without such an assurance he thought a Division should be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he thought the statement made covered this point. The statement was that not only would the War Department use such methods as were open to make inquiry as to the rate of wages in the district, but that they would employ all the official machinery at the disposal of the Government for that purpose, and that of course included in the first rank such assistance as could be given by the Board of Trade.
  MR. J. COLVILLEsaid he understood that the hours of labour differed in dockyards from the hours of contractors, and that therefore the rate of payment was relatively not less in the dockyards than with other employers. If the Leader of the House would give an assurance that dockyard employés would not be penalised in consequence of the difference in hours, no doubt this discussion would speedily come to a close.
  MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARsaid that he had a very high respect for the First Lord of the Treasury, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely disposed to do the right thing. But he suggested that "reasonable rate of wages" would be a better subject for inquiry than "current rate of wages." "Current rate" was perfectly applicable to men in a good position, but for men on the verge of starvation it was scarcely good enough. As an old employer of labour he knew how fallacious it was to look simply to the rate of wages paid, for it did not follow that the men worked full time. In a case of this kind, the minimum standard should be the living wage.
  MR. J. W. LOGANsaid that he had the greatest respect for the First Lord of the Treasury, but, if he were one of the unfortunate men at Woolwich with the miserable pittance of 20s. a week, he should hardly be satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Neither was he satisfied with the tone of the remarks of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the War Office was bound to obtain its labour at the lowest possible figure.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I had no such thought in my mind; if the hon. Member had listened to what I said, he would not have received such an impression.
  MR. LOGANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had frequently spoken of these labourers being an inferior class of men.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I did not. I spoke of the lowest class of labourer; but that expression had nothing to do with the character of the men employed.
  MR. LOGANsaid that the hon. Gentleman had described these men employed at the arsenal as inferior to the labourers employed by private firms for higher wages. But he himself took a higher standpoint. He was not concerned so much that the Government should pay the current rate of wages, as that they should pay to the men in their employment a wage which would enable them to maintain their wives and families in decency and comfort. And the wage paid to hundreds of men at Woolwich did not enable them to fulfil those conditions. In no party spirit he asked hon. Members opposite to consider the wretched position of men getting 21s. a week, and paying 8s. a week in rent. What remained to them was but the price of a bottle of wine. The consequence of such wages was, that the men's wives had to go out to work, and the children were neglected. The price of that neglect had to be paid in the long run by the community. Such wages were quite insufficient; and the Government ought to endeavour to be a model employer of labour.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £50, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 145.—(Division List, No. 393.)
  MAJOR RASCHcalled attention to the jamming of the Lee-Metford magazine rifle, and so rendering the rifle for the time absolutely useless and inefficient. About a fortnight ago he put a question on the subject to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the answer given to him was that the Lee-Metford magazine rifle was not intended to be

  139
  used for blank-cartridge, and that, with regard to ball cartridge, for years the War Office has had no official complaint. Such an answer, put forward in the light-hearted way in which answers were given to Ministers, to be repeated in the House to hon. Members, was, he ventured to say, what they might expect to get at a peace meeting in Exeter Hall, and it was entirely contrary to facts. If the Financial Secretary would only refer to the Instructions brought out with the seal and cachet of the War Office, he would find detailed rules and regulations laid down as to how this blank cartridge, which he said was not intended to be used in the magazine in the Lee-Metford, was to be fired. As to the second and more important part of the hon. Gentleman's answer, they all knew what an "official" complaintmeant. A Government Department, unless they had a complaint written out on a sheet of foolscap, paid no attention to it whatever. But what he said and knew was that at some battalion practice, only a fortnight ago, at the ranges near Gravesend, there were a very considerable number of jammed rifles while firing ball cartridge. Military Members of the Committee know very well that when the Lee-Metford jammed with ball cartridge you could not extract it by giving the butt a kick with your boot; the rifle had to go back to the armoury sergeant. Suppose that happened in action. You could not send half-a-dozen to the armoury sergeant in the rear to have the bullets extracted. The weapon for a time was rendered as useless as a walking-stick, and less useful than a poker because not so well balanced. One could imagine what the effect would be in the campaign going on up the Nile if 20 per cent. of the 100 men in a company in the face of a square suddenly found their rifles jam, and he need only remind the Committee that at Abou Klea and El Teb, the jamming of a Maxim led, in the former case, to the death of a good many gallant men, and in the latter, as was stated at the time, to the breaking of the square. He only desired an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he really would look into the matter.
  SIR HENRY HAVE LOCK-ALLANmoved to reduce the Vote by £50. The hon. Member for Hythe, who had been prevented from
  140
  being present, had prepared a Resolution on this subject which would have raised the whole question of the administration of the Ordnance Factories and their present management. Since a civilian had been put at the head of the Ordnance Factories by the late Mr. Stanhope some years ago, a great change had now come over the administration of the factories. Judging by the way in which the Estimate was presented to Parliament, one would suppose that the Committee were voting on the paltry sum of £100, whereas if the paper was examined it would be seen that it related to nearly £3,000,000. The questions embraced in the whole Vote included among other things the manufacture of guns for the Army and Navy, the guns to be produced for the Indian Government and the arms to be used in the colonies, and the question was whether the country was receiving its money's worth or not. He did not impute anything unfair or unreasonable to those in charge of the preparation of the Army Estimates, but it was a great evil that the Ordnance Vote, in comparison with previous years, should be practically withdrawn from examination and criticism by being presented to the House in a separate paper. In consequence of the mode of presenting the Vote it was impossible for anyone, however closely acquainted with the details, to tell what particular sum was allotted to any particular manufacture. It was better that the Government should frankly take the House into its confidence and should return to the former practice of giving the whole of the details on the Estimates. Dissatisfaction was being expressed because of late years the whole direction and superintendence of the Ordnance Factories had passed into civilian hands. He said not a word in disparagement of that gentleman. He was a most laborious official and devoted attention to his work. But it would be more satisfactory if the details were allowed to appear in the Estimates as before.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that in addition to jamming of the rifles, to which attention had been called, there was the additional serious defect caused by the effects of cordite powder. After a certain number of rounds had been fired there was an emenation of some kind of gas from the

  141
  rifle which had such an. effect on the eyes of the men using it as almost to blind them. After firing 80 or 90 rounds it was found to be impossible for the men to continue using the rifle. The result was that even if the rifle was not put out of action by the jamming of the bullet, the men were put out of action by the blinding of the eyes.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that the question of rifle-jamming, if it assumed the proportions which had been stated, would need serious attention. The blinding effects of the powder, to which attention had been called, was also a very important point and one which, with regard to the carbine, at least, was engaging the serious attention of the Department. As to jamming, he did not quite understand whether the complaint was that the musketry instructions forced a man to fire blank cartridge from the magazine. (Major RASCH: "Yes.") In that case there seemed to be some difference between the instructions and the practice which appeared to need setting right, because he understood that blank cartridge was not intended to be used in the magazine of the rifle. If the jamming was general it was a serious matter, but the Department had no official complaints on the subject. Obviously the incidents of jamming at Gravesend should be reported, and be assured his hon. Friend that, if reported, the question would be examined without delay. As to the complaint of the Vote being presented in this form, he said that the present arrangement was adopted as being that which enabled Parliament to have the largest control over it and the most information as to the Vote. The reason why the original Paper relating to the Ordnance Factory Vote was not presented bound up with the Ordinary Votes was that it was not always possible at the very moment when the Army Estimates were themselves presented to hand over the Estimate for the Ordnance Factories, which was an Estimate depending on the supplies ordered by the Admiralty War Office of India, and which, therefore, might require adjustment after these Estimates had been agreed upon. But there was no desire to elude the vigilance of Parliament, and the facts relating to the
  142
  Ordnance Vote were always before the House before the Army Estimates were brought up for discussion. The present civilian head of the Ordnance Factories had discharged admirably the duties of his office. There had never been a time when the articles supplied by the Ordnance Factories had been supplied more promptly, cheaply and regularly than they were at this moment. At the beginning of the year promises had been made to the House both as to the conversion of guns and as to new guns. Those promises everybody agreed were thoroughly satisfactory, and they had all been fulfilled. The guns promised for the first of June had been completed before the middle of May, and the promises made as to the completion of weapons on other dates had been fulfilled in an equally satisfactory manner.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: Have we a reserve?
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid that that was a more general question than the one which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member. It was not being lost sight of. His hon. and gallant Friend, he thought, had moved this reduction under a misconception. There was nothing in the way in which this Vote was brought forward that required amendment. The hon. and gallant Member had probably in his mind the Factory Accounts. It was unavoidable that some months should elapse before they were presented, but they were duly presented and went before the Controller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANdid not think the hon. Member's explanation satisfactory in all respects, especially in respect of the reserve of guns, but, as his object was only to call attention to the important points which he had referred to, he did not intend to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether it was true that the 100-ton guns were failures, and that no more were to be manufactured? What kind of guns would be adopted in their stead, and could any use be made of any 100-ton guns that were removed from our line-of-battle ships?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid that displaced 100-ton guns were being used for shore defences. No more 100-ton guns of the present type would be manufactured, and they would be replaced by guns built on the wire system of equally destructive power and equal range.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £858,600, Clothing Establishment and Services—
  *MR. ALEXANDER WYLIE, called attention to the question of the uniforms of the Highland militia regiments. There were five Highland regiments of the line, and to them were linked Militia battalions. The Militia battalions linked to the Cameron and the Gordon Highlanders respectively wore the same uniforms as their line battalions, but the Militia battalions linked to the Seaforth Highlanders, the Argyll and Sutherland Higlanders, and the Black Watch did not wear the uniforms of their line battalions. He held that it was very desirable that Militia regiments should wear the same uniform as the line battalions with which they were connected. One reason why this was desirable was that in camp and especially in active warfare, they would be able to take their place alongside of their line regiments; and another reason was that it would stimulate recruiting, as sentiment largely affected that matter in Scotland. He had received letters on this subject from some distinguished officers in Scotland. One of them said:—
  "I at first thought that the difficulties of teaching men who had never worn the kilt, and who are only in training for a month each year, would be insuperable, but after having seen how well the Inverness and Aberdeen Militia do and look in the kilt, I have changed my opinion, and am now strongly in favour of the battalion being-dressed as their line battalion. Not only would it improve the look of the regiment, but also, I think, it would have a good effect on recruiting. There would no doubt he some difficulties to be got over the first year, but after that matters would work quite smoothly, and I think that there not only would be no additional expense but that clothing could be done cheaper."
  The other correspondent said:—
  "It would help greatly towards their popularity if the Highland Militia Regiments were put into kilts instead of trews. I was at
  144
  Barry camp this training, and saw the Inver-ness-shire Militia—2nd Battalion Cameron Highlanders—in their kilts, and they certainly looked uncommonly well and smart, and very proud of themselves."
  The Militia form a most important and valuable branch of our defensive forces, and at the present time there is some fear of their interests falling between the Regulars and Volunteers; and I strongly recommend the Under Secretary for War to take up this subject heartily.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODcomplained of the unfair charges that private soldiers had to bear in respect of the wear and tear of their clothing during manœuvres. In one Regiment recently the cost to which the soldiers were put amounted to 5s. per head, in a second to 15s., in a third to 12s., and in a fourth to 15s. These sums represented the cost incurred in respect of the wear and tear of frocks, trousers and boots. Officers were also put to a great deal of unnecessary and unfair expense in connection with these manœuvres, in some instances having to pay out of their own pockets sums varying from 25s. to 30s. a day. He hoped the Under Secretary would give an undertaking that the matter should be looked into and considered on its merits.
  *COLONEL WELBYwished to take up the cavalry side of this question, because he had more experience and knowledge of that service. He would ask the Under Secretary to bear in mind that the Army at home was divided into two kinds of quarters, namely, those in country quarters, where regiments undergo ordinary drills; and those in camps, such as Aldershot, where they had extended drills and often manœuvres on a large scale. The clothing issued to non-commissioned officers and men, and the allowance in lieu of clothing were sufficient in the first case, but in the case of camps and manœuvres it was not sufficient, and the clothing, by its material and cut, did not fulfil the requirements demanded of it. The result was that a heavy charge was cast upon the men, and as we had a voluntary Army for which we had to depend on competition in the labour market, hon. Members might be certain that men who went away from the colours spread throughout the country the cost entailed upon them by the bad wear of

  145
  their uniforms. His own regiment had taken part in extended drills, flying columns and manœuvres for six years past, and he ventured to say that if hon. Members could know the cost that had been cast on the non-commissioned officers and men in consequence they would be astonished. He wished particularly to refer to the garment known as the service frock. This jacket was only issued once a year to non-commissioned officers and men, and experience had shown that a single issue was not sufficient for the work required of it. The garment was faulty in its structure, in its cut, and in its material. It frequently split from the shoulders downwards from simply doing lance or sword exercise, or even mounting a horse. Reports had been made about it on behalf of his regiment, and the answer had always been that the men were broader shouldered and more muscular than the ordinary run of men. That was a compliment, no doubt, but he did not see why broad-shouldered Scotchmen should be penalised because they possessed a physique which it was desirable the whole Army should have. There was a large reserve of those garments, which was rendered necessary, because when the Army was mobilised the Reserve men had to be put into these jackets and extra jackets had to be forwarded to the seat of war. He would suggest that the Under Secretary should consider the possibility of issuing an extra number of these jackets to each regiment. He thought it might be possible to issue three jackets in two years to each man in cavalry regiments who was called a duty man, riding in the ranks. He suggested this as a temporary means of bridging over the difficulty. If the Under Secretary could do something in the direction suggested by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epping, he would be doing not only a popular but a very just thing. The sure and lasting remedy for this was to go more carefully into the question of uniform. During the last few years distinction had been made between the show uniform and the working dress. He agreed that it was necessary to have a show dress, even smarter than at present, but it was also necessary to have a thoroughly good working dress—not such a dress as was taken out of store for war purposes, but
  146
  a dress which would be in possession of the soldier to wear for ordinary drill, extended drills or autumn manœuvres. If a good practical dress could be devised of good material the difficulty connected with this extra expenditure would be obviated.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONthought it was a real hardship and prejudicial to the service that the men should be out of pocket by doing the duties they were called upon to perform. Within his knowledge three years ago, a certain battalion was exposed to unusually bad weather during the autumn manœuvres and their clothing was ruined. The officers felt themselves compelled to subscribe in order to relieve the men. The battalion was obliged to be furnished with new tunics throughout, for which the officers paid rather than that the expense should fall on the men. Then again, marching had been much increased in order to get regiments into thorough marching condition. That was of course, very right, but it added greatly to the expense of the men, because a pair of boots would hardly last a week under present circumstances, and they had to be replaced. He knew one regiment that had suffered so much in this respect, that for the first time for many years it had been below its strength. These matters certainly deserved the attention of the War Office, and he was quite sure his hon. Friend the Under Secretary would take care they were considered.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he had intended to draw attention to the fact that there were a large number of hands employed in the Royal Clothing Factory who did not receive what he considered to be the current rate of wages. But he was sure the hon. Member, when he dealt with the question as regards the Royal Factories, would take the case of the Clothing Factory at Pimlico into his consideration.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODdesired to put a question with regard to decentralisation of clothing. He understood that the Director General had perfected all his arrangements for decentralisation, and he was anxious to know whether they were to be carried into execution.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that of the total Vote, £416,000 was for manufactured articles of clothing bought ready-made. A very small proportion of that,

  147
  £24, 000, was for garments. He would like to know whether that represented all the ready-made garments purchased. There was a very heavy item for hoots and leggings, £22,000. He desired to know whether strict attention had been paid to the rules under which this work was manufactured outside in order to prevent sweating, and to see that a proper rate of wages was paid by the contractors.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSstated that the ready-made garments supplied to the Army included plain clothes for discharged soldiers, waterproof clothing, etc. With regard to the manufacture of this clothing, the terms of the fair wages Resolution were embodied in. every contract. If there was any complaint, it was rigidly inquired into, and there was no reason to suppose that the Resolution was in any way departed from. With regard to the question of the minimum rate of wages in the Clothing Department, the promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury in relation to the Ordnance Factory would apply to the Clothing Factory, and he should be very glad of any information which hon. Members could place at his disposal in the investigation which would be made. [Cheers.] As to the decentralisation of Army clothing, the general principle had been approved by the Secretary of State. It was, however, a matter of consideration from the point of view of the cost, which might be very considerable; and that had not up to the present time been fully worked out. But he had every hope that before they had to meet the Committee again and explain these Estimates a step in the direction indicated might have been accomplished. ["Hear, hear!"] The question of the kilt was a very difficult one and had occupied the attention of successive Secretaries of State for a considerable number of years. It had not been thought desirable to re-establish the kilt where the men had stripped themselves of that mysterious garment. In the year 1889 the matter was before the Adjutant General and his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and the decision come to with regard to it was—" that the opinion still prevails that, apart from the wishes of a few individual officers, no reason whatever has been shown for putting this regiment (that was the
  148
  regiment that had applied) into kilts, and in the general interests of the public it was not desirable so to do." [Laughter.] He thought the words he had read was only capable of one interpretation. [Renewed laughter.] A further application was received from this particular regiment, and a similar answer was given. He was afraid the kilt would be enlarged in its boundaries. With regard to the question raised by the Members for Taunton and Manchester, if he expressed his own opinion, he thought their criticisms upon the particular garment referred to were pretty well sustained. But he desired to guard himself against the supposition that the soldier ought to consider himself hardly used if he was called upon to wear out his clothes. The clothing was furnished for a particular period, and if it did not endure longer than that period there was no hardship. It was true that if a soldier took care of his clothing and it wore longer than that period he received a consideration; but the idea was that the clothing should not be of such a character as would necessarily put him in possession of that allowance. Therefore, it had been considered that, although in consequence of manœuvres or bad weather a soldier's clothing was subjected to very hard usage, that did not necessarily give him a grievance or a right to consideration. But he fancied that, after all, to some minds at the War Office it had appeared that, looking at the fact that a special class of soldier was subjected to service causing wear and tear of clothing to which another class of soldier or regiment might not be subjected, there was an apparent grievance, and the matter had occupied the attention of the Secretary of State. He could make no promise that any allowance would be given; but he asked his hon. and gallant Friends to be assured that the matter would receive careful consideration on the part of the War Office, and he hoped some equitable adjustment would be made. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £1,517,200, Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, etc.,—
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHpointed out that one of the items had

  149
  passed through three stages since the Estimates were first presented. The item was for £32,000, and originally included a personal pension to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge of £1,800. There was also a saving on the variation items of £550. The Government, however, withdrew the allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, and the £1,800 ought to have been handed over to the Treasury. But a new Estimate was issued with the £1,800 added to the variation items, so that instead of a saving of £550 there was a loss of £1,250. Then a third Estimate was issued with the variation items restored to £550. He asked for an explanation of these changes.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid the matter was very easily explained. The original Estimate included £1,800, the proposed allowance to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. That being abandoned, a further Estimate was circulated, the variation being changed to the extent of £1,800. The reason for this was that on getting further on in the year they found that the variations were rather against them than for them. Attention being drawn to this, the Secretary of State decided that on the whole it would be more satisfactory to the House of Commons if the Vote were reduced as a consequence of the change of policy on the part of the Government, and so the change was made and the Estimate now under discussion circulated, the total being reduced by the amount of the Vote withdrawn.
  MR. LEWISpresumed that the hon. Gentleman wished the Committee to accept an assurance that the various items of variation amounted to exactly the sum of £1,800. That was indeed an extraordinary coincidence.
  *MR. BRODRICKexplained that was not so. What was done was purely as a matter of convenience, and to save the expense of printing a large number of figures.
  MR. LEWISsaid the object of the Government was clear; they wanted to hustle this sum of £1,800 out of the way in the most decent and constitutional manner they could, and subsequently, having changed their minds, they reverted to the original position. It was an extraordinary series of transactions on the Vote, only explicable on
  150
  the theory he had indicated, that they wanted to get rid of this item of £1,800. It was hardly a dignified way of dealing with the matter. The House should have received an explanatory memorandum with the altered figures.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid although the amount in question was not large, the principle involved was one of great importance. The War Office having decided upon a certain policy, declared it by a Vote in the Estimates. It had always been the custom, when Estimates were laid on the Table, to allow these to remain as the Estimates for the year, any change desired being made when the Vote came on for discussion. But what had been the policy pursued in this case? After presenting the Estimate the Government decided to make a change, and the Leader of the House announced that when the Vote was reached he would state their policy. But in the meantime, by means not brought to the knowledge of the House, this change occurred in the Estimates which had been pointed out. Apart altogether from the particular point was the question whether the Committee were to accept the principle that Votes might be thus altered? It was to be observed that if this was sanctioned such alterations might be made without limit of time, and this alteration might have been made yesterday. He hoped that at least this discussion would have the effect of preventing such a course being taken in future. It was evident, from an examination of the items, that the Estimate had been cooked in order to meet the emergency of the withdrawal of £1,800. Wanting to have the spending of this amount, and wishing to avoid discussion upon the points involved in the item, leaves were torn out of the Estimates and others substituted, so that the Committee approached the discussion with an Estimate altogether changed from the form in which it was presented. He hoped that in future, if the Government changed their opinion on a matter of this kind, they would stand by their Estimate until it came before the Committee, and then, in conformity with precedent, let the Government ask leave to withdraw a Vote. The Committee were entitled to a declaration that what had been done in this instance

  151
  should not form a precedent for the future.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that as a point of order he ought to inform the Committee that the Government were perfectly at liberty to make a substitution in the Estimates.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he did not raise this as a point of order.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)said they did not challenge the right of the Government to alter or cook the Estimates before submitting them to the Committee, but simply submitted that, as a matter of fairness and straightforward conduct, this should not be done without explanation. Upon this they were entitled to an expression of opinion from the Leader of the House. It certainly did look rather strange that, leaves having been torn out, the £1,800 set down in respect to a certain item being withdrawn, no difference at all was shown in the total sum, the amount of £1,800 being spread over such items as Royal Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, and Cavalry. They were entitled to ask the First Lord of the Treasury—who he was sure would not mislead the Committee, and who he was perfectly willing to trust implicitly in such a matter—did the right hon. Gentleman really assure the Committee that these alterations made in items for Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, and Cavalry, which enabled the Government to present the same Estimate, were really bona fide charges in respect to these services? To put the point candidly, was this not merely a way of getting out of the difficulty in which the Government were, that they did not wish discussion on the matter when they withdrew the sum they originally put down for his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge? Was it not a way of getting out of the difficulty without facing Debate upon it? If that was the case, he was sure the First Lord of the Treasury would be the first to denounce it as a thing that ought not to be done. It was not fair to the House of Commons, it was not open and straightforward. He ventured to think the right hon. Gentleman would agree it was subterfuge.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid two quite different questions were raised in the criticisms on this subject. Hon. Members seemed to think,
  152
  in the first place, that by the arrangement made the Government desired to avoid discussion upon a Vote they intended to withdraw. That was one point. It was perfectly true the Government did not want discussion on a Vote they had decided to withdraw. That was clear and only natural. Everybody would admit that the desire was legitimate enough. The second criticism was that, the amount of £1,800 being withdrawn, items were so manipulated that the total amount remained as it was before the withdrawal. Upon that it would be observed that the total sum was over 1½ million, and therefore there was a formidable array of figures. When the matter was brought to his notice, he said this was not the proper way of dealing with it. Then the Estimate, upon which the total remained the same, was withdrawn, and at considerable cost of printing the old Estimate was prepared without the variations incident on the withdrawal of the £1,800. That he thought the legitimate mode of dealing with the matter, it was adopted entirely on his responsibility, and he hoped the Committee approved.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; that was exactly the point he wished to have settled, and with the Estimate as put forward now they were perfectly satisfied.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZWYGRAMcalled attention to the system of compulsory retirement in the Army, and suggested an alternative system, under which there would be no increase of retiring allowance for increased length of service. He proposed that every officer should become entitled to a maximum retiring allowance at 45 years of age, but that officers should be allowed to remain in the service as long as they wished to do so, and their commanding officers, in their confidential reports, declared them to be fit for their duties. This system would, in the first place, get rid of the grievance of compulsory retirement; and it could not be to the interests of the Army that men who had done good service should be going about complaining of ill-treatment. In the second place, it would effect a great saving to the nation; and, in the third place, it would get rid of the drones in the Army. The men who had

  153
  no hope of obtaining good appointments would leave the service as soon as they had become entitled to the maximum pension; while the best officers would remain in the Army, because they would be compensated for the loss of any extra retiring allowance by the good appointments which they would obtain. Under the system of compulsory retirement, the worst officers stayed on as long as possible, because the retiring allowance was proportioned to the length of service. In India, when he was there, both systems existed. In the civil service the voluntary retirement system obtained, with the result that it was a most efficient service, especially in the higher branches. In the local army, on the other hand, the retiring allowance was graduated according to length of service; and the consequence was that all the incompetent men endeavoured to remain in the service until the last moment. He proposed this scheme to the Secretary for War as one which would decrease the amount of the pension list and increase the efficiency of the Army.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid that anything which fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman was of great interest, especially when it suggested the increase of efficiency and a decrease of expense. But he could not conceal the fact that the system suggested would revolutionise the conditions under which the service of officers in the Army was accepted. The hope had been held out to every officer that he would be allowed to serve in his rank up to the age at which it was deemed desirable for him to retire; and after that the officer was encouraged to believe that, according to his number of years' service, his pension would be graduated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that officers should be allowed to stay in the service to any age in any rank, and that the duty should be thrown on the superior officer of saying when any particular officer became unfit for his duties. That would be a most invidious task. With an enormous machine like the Army some general principle must be adopted; and under the present regulations, a captain must retire at 45, a major at 48, a colonel at 57, and a major-general at 62. If an officer was allowed to serve up to 60 years of age, and was then turned
  154
  out on a pension of £200 a year, there would be a legitimate cause for complaint. There would be the choice of keeping men on in appointments for which they had become unfitted, or of turning them out into poverty. It was a sound principle which adjusted the pension to the length of service. There might be occasional cases of hardship; but the present ages had been considerably raised since the time when, the age-limit being 40, a grave scandal was caused by half the officers having to leave the Army at that age. The present limits of age obtained for the Army a very high class of officers at a low cost. The present Commander-in-Chief desired that subject to efficiency, officers should be retained in the service as long as possible; but the Secretary of State could not consider any plans by which the present system would be overthrown.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. £172,800, Superannuation and other Allowances and Gratuities—Agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

  CLASS III.
  5. £65,811, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland,—
  MR. MCLEODsaid that there was a gratifying decrease in the total sum asked for under this Vote. That decrease was mainly due to the large reduction in the sum drawn by the Procurators-fiscal. It was also gratifying that there wore no extraordinary charges for the administration of justice in the Highlands. There was no part of the country where the law was more respected. There were also gratifying circumstances connected with the personal administration of the Minister in charge of the Vote. There were, however, two matters which he desired to criticise. There were certain courts in Scotland where there was habitually considerable delay before decisions were given in civil cases. Pressure ought to be brought to bear upon the officials who were responsible in order that that state of things might

  155
  be put an end to. Another point which deserved attention concerned the county of Inverness. He had been informed that an unfortunate difference of opinion had arisen between the Sheriff and the Sheriff-Clerk, with the result that the Sheriff-Clerk was out of pocket for a considerable time in respect of the remuneration which he paid to the deputies whom he employed. Attention had already been called to this matter, and he had heard with pleasure that the Secretary for Scotland had at once taken action. He wished to know whether that action had been successful, and whether by the exercise of friendly pressure by the Scotch Department, the differences to which he had alluded had been composed. Another subject calling for consideration was the anomalous position where certain officials, especially procurators fiscal were in. In North Uist, for example, the Procurator fiscal was bound to reside in a particular place, but the proprietor of the island so used his power that it was only in a surreptitious way that this Crown official was able to obtain a residence befitting his position. The Lord Advocate, he knew, had no power to put an end to this state of things, but the right hon. Gentleman might do something by bringing a certain amount of pressure to bear upon the landlord. The gentleman in question, by his conduct, was showing the country what arbitrary powers landlords possessed. There was a considerable population in North Uist, for whom the law should have terrors, and a Crown official was not placed in a particularly dignified position, when he was compelled to take lodgings in a private house. Some Sheriff-substitutes also found themselves in a similar position. In his own county the Sheriff-substitute had found difficulties placed in the way of his residing in the part of the county where he was supposed to live, and the consequence was that he resided in Ross-shire and not in the county of Sutherland. The Lord Advocate might say that an official would have no difficulty in obtaining a feu where he could build a house. His contention, however, was that a Sheriff-substitute ought to be provided with an official residence. An official having a small salary was naturally loth to build a house which his successor might
  156
  not care to take over. Turning to another matter, he saw from the Estimates that there were allowances for stationery for Sheriff-Clerks. The Sheriff-Clerks were provided with stationery within strict limits except in the case of Orkney, Sutherland, and Shetland. He did not contend that this was a very large point, but he thought that when the clerks in all other counties received an allowance in that respect, the Lord Advocate might consider whether he could not see his way to making the practice uniform in all counties.
  DR. CLARKcalled attention to the want of residential accommodation for the Procurator Fiscal and Official Solicitor in Lochmaddy. At the present time the Sheriff was under threat of eviction, and the Fiscal had been evicted for years. He was compelled by law to reside in the district, but people who had taken him and the resident Solicitor in had been evicted. The Solicitor had to live in a boat, and the Fiscal was living over a Highland store. The landlord was king of the island and would not allow these officials to live in it. The only course that seemed to be open was to remove the court. There was, however, any amount of foreshore belonging to the Crown on which houses for these officials could be built, and they were perfectly willing to build them. He hoped that the Government would come to some kind of understanding with Sir John Orr, or provide a sufficient site on the foreshore where the Procurator Fiscal and the Solicitor could live in civilised conditions. If nothing could be done, the court should be moved down to Lochboisdale. He hoped that something would be done, so that this scandal in the "Western Hebrides might cease, and that the law might be carried out in that part of the country under the same conditions as in the rest of the country.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDEBBURNwished to draw attention to a matter which had excited a great deal of feeling amongst the farmers in his and the neighbouring constituency. He referred to the grievance of sheep-worrying. He wished to know what steps were being taken under the existing law to deal with this matter; and he would

  157
  also like to ask the Lord Advocate, considering that the grievance had reached an acute stage, what special steps he would now take to deal with the matter. In the county of Banff the matter came recently before the County Council, and they went so far as to appoint a Special Committee to consider it. He was aware that a Select Committee was sitting to consider the law on the subject, but the deliberations of Committees took time, and something ought to be done at once to check this crying grievance. Almost all the mischief was done at night. The dogs came out at night and destroyed a great number of sheep, and it was very difficult to identify the dogs or their owners. On the occasion of the meeting of the County Council to which he had referred, one gentleman said that for three or four weeks six or eight sheep had been killed every alternate night, and another gentleman said that within his own experience one of the neighbouring farmers had actually lost half his sheep in this way during the last year. This was a very serious matter both for poor and well-to-do men, and the question was how the scandal was to be checked. One very natural remedy was that steps should be taken to get these dogs tied up. If the police took care to have all suspicious dogs tied up at night, that would do a great deal to check the evil. A great deal of mischief was done by dogs which ran after sheep in the day time—dogs following vehicles on the roads. They sometimes ran the sheep into quarries and other dangerous places, and when once sheep had been driven in this way it took a week for them to settle down and feed properly. What was wanted was that all stray dogs should be dealt with by the police. He was not sure that the police were aware of the power they had. Under the existing law any ownerless dog found wandering could be removed to the police station. There was a great uncertainty with regard to the law as to the killing of dogs addicted to sheep worrying. He believed there had been a number of contradictory decisions by the courts, and that the right to act against a dog was very restricted. Unless a dog was caught red-handed, or rather red-mouthed, nothing could be done. A man was not entitled to shoot a dog unless he believed that in that
  158
  way he could save the sheep. There were various ways in which the matter could be dealt with. The Board of Agriculture had power to make regulations with regard to muzzling. If muzzling was wanted anywhere it was in these districts, where the dog was very apt to become as dangerous to the neighbourhood as the wolf.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, who was indistinctly heard, said the hon. Member for Sutherland had spoken in a commendatory strain of his action in regard to the appointment of Procurators-Fiscal and Sheriff-Clerks. While glad to have the hon. Member's approval, he wished to sound a note of warning in the matter He drew a great distinction between the two classes of officials, though in the case of both the object must be to get the best men for the public service. In regard to Procurators Fiscal, he was of opinion that, given an adequate salary, the Procurator Fiscal should not be allowed to engage in private practice, but even that rule must lead to the necessity of getting a good man, because, after all, the administration of justice, and the whole efficiency of his department depended upon being well served by the Procurators Fiscal, and unless a sufficient salary was provided them, in some cases they might be bound to take persons engaged in private practice. The case of Sheriff-Clerk was quite different. No restriction was needed to prevent him practising in his own court. What did it matter whether the Sheriff Clerk by himself or through a partner did a certain amount of conveyancing. Even if his client came into court the Sheriff Clerk had nothing to do with the determination of the case. Therefore he strongly held the view that in order to get the best men, it was well to allow the Sheriff Clerk to engage in private practice. But there, again, he did not want the rule to be made inflexible. In these appointments, the practical thing was to get the confidence of the public, and he would go against his own opinion in the matter if he was sure that the course he was taking would secure respect for the judicature. With regard to the delay in civil causes that was not a matter in which he had any practical jurisdiction at all. As to the difference that existed between the Sheriff and the Sheriff-Clerk, that was a question of the

  159
  past. There had been a certain amount of friction, but through the good offices of the Secretary for Scotland, an arrangement had been made between the two dignitaries which would obviate friction in future years. Then the hon. Member spoke of the administration of justice at Lochmaddy. No doubt there was still a difficulty between the Procurator Fiscal and the proprietor, but he was not entitled to offer any judgment, for he had no powers in the matter. The general provision of official residences seemed to him rather an heroic remedy. They had been going on under the present system for a great many years, and except in the case of Lochmaddy, no one had ever known of a Procurator Fiscal or Sheriff-substitute failing to get a residence. The suggestion that a house should be put on the foreshore was not practicable. The foreshore was that portion of the shore whore the sea ebbs and flows, and an official residence there would be rather damp. With regard to the case in his own constituency, about which the hon. Member for Sutherland asked, that was also a matter on which he did not wish to make any pronouncement. So far as his opinion upon the administration of justice was concerned, he was all in favour of the Sheriff-substitute living on the spot, because the convenience of suitors was the thing that had to be studied. As to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Banffshire, it had no reference to the administration of justice. It was quite certain he could not prosecute a dog, and the only way in which the subject could be in order would be if it was urged that some people had been aiding and abetting their dogs to worry sheep and he had not prosecuted them. The hon. Member did not, however, suggest that. So far as the action of the police was concerned the hon. Member must remember that that question did not arise on this Vote but on that of the Secretary for Scotland. It was a very grave question, but at the same time there was no doubt—without throwing any doubt on the facts brought forward by the hon. Member—that there were such cases in other parts of Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland was at present making exhaustive inquiries of the chief constable to see what steps might be taken by the
  160
  police to try to put a stop to this practice.
  MR. J. CALDWELL, asked to what extent the law officers might engage in private practice. He called attention to the fact that while the salary of the clerk to the Lord Advocate was £400, the salary of the clerk to the Solicitor General was only £100. The Scotch Votes were he thought as a rule economical. But he thought the clerk to the Solicitor General was paid far too little, and that his salary should be doubled. He pointed out that the duties of the Solicitor General were made a great deal more onerous by the Local Government Act. He thought it was a good system for one of the law officers to be in Scotland. He noticed with regard to the legal Secretary that his salary was £500, and that of course he did not consider too high. His expenses in London, however, were £180, while the amount paid to him for preparing Scotch Bills was £800. Therefore although the salary was nominally £500 it was really about £1,500. There were not many Scotch Bills passed through the House, this Session, the only Bill practically had been the Agricultural Bating Bill. There was, it was true, the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, but that was a Bill to correct a blunder of the draftsman in 1892, and which would therefore, he supposed, be paid for twice over. He did not object to £800 being paid for Scotch Bills, but if it was paid they ought at least to get a reasonable time of the House allotted to them so that they might pass the Bills into law. Another point was in regard to appropriations in aid. The actual amount received last year was about £42,000, but the amount was now estimated at £32,000. With regard to the case of Lochmaddy, the Sheriff-substitute was bound to be resident by law in the locality, and yet the landlord to whom the island belonged had evicted him, and practically the Sheriff-substitute had no house. He thought that was not a very satisfactory position, and that the Government might do well to consider the matter. No doubt it was only in regard to these extreme instances that the law required to be amended. He wished to direct the attention of the Lord Advocate to a special matter which he had brought before his notice in questions. He

  161
  referred to the case of the eviction in Kirkintilloch, where a miner was evicted from his holding without any warrant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply to a question, had said that it was inconceivable that there was no warrant for the eviction. He certainly thought it was a most extraordinary thing that an eviction should take place in Scotland without a legal warrant, and I the matter was one of very considerable importance to a great many miners throughout Scotland. The miner had occupied his house for six years, and when out of employment had received a warning to remove. It was admitted that in this particular case the house was let from week to week, and as he was continued in his employment be was under the impression that the warning away had been withdrawn. Before the eviction took place some dispute had arisen between the manager of the mine and the men, and then he got notice to remove his goods before 12 o'clock, and he was then forcibly turned out by the manager and two men into the street. Notice had previously been given by the manager to the police for them to be upon the spot in case of any disturbance taking place during the eviction. All these proceedings were taken without any legal warrant whatever. His contention was that under the law of Scotland a warning away did not give a right to anyone to displace a man by force from his holding. To justify such action a legal warrant must have been previously obtained. In his view, this case was one of considerable importance. If men went into another man's house and removed his furniture without warrant, that was such an illegal proceeding that the Lord Advocate ought to inquire into it on account of the principle which it involved. It was also a matter for inquiry whether the police were justified in acceding to the manager's request to assist in the eviction as far as their presence was concerned. There was another matter that he desired to bring-under the notice; of the Lord Advocate. He had put a question on Monday on the subject to the Lord Advocate, and he now desired to emphasise that question by again referring to it. It appeared that a young man had been charged with an indecent assault, and
  162
  that on his being tried for the offence the jury had given a verdict of "Not proven." He did not desire to discuss the merits of the case, but the point he desired to bring under the attention of the Lord Advocate was the length of time (hat had elapsed between the commission of the alleged offence before any action was taken on the part of the prosecution.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the answer to the first question of the hon. Member in reference to the salary and duties of the Lord Advocate was one for the Treasury. The duties of the office covered all business for the Crown and for Public Departments. Next, the hon. Member asked if there was any embargo upon private practice, and the answer was there was not. Then the hon. Member remarked upon the discrepancy between the salary of the Lord Advocate's clerk, £400, and that of the Solicitor General's clerk,£100. Of course, he had no wish to prevent the hon. Member taking such steps as he might think fit to raise the salary of the latter, but there could be no doubt that the Lord Advocate's clerk had a good deal more to do. When the salary attached to the office of Solicitor General was increased, the salary of the Solicitor General's clerk was raised from £73 10s. to £100. The last Member spoke of the Solicitor General not being in the House, and said this was not a grievance to him. It was, however, something of a grievance to the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member expressed a preference for the idea that the Solicitor General for Scotland should always be out of the House, but in that he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman, not only because of the advantage it would be in the conduct of Scotch business to have the assistance of another law officer, but because of the training presence in the House afforded. What a miserable condition would he have been in if he had to face the denunciatory forefinger of the hon. Gentleman without any previous experience. Next, the hon. Member called attention to the allowance of £800 in addition to the allowance of £500 to the Lord Advocate's secretary. The £800 was not paid to the Lord Advocate's secretary; it was paid in respect to the drafting of Bills, and simply distributed by the Lord

  163
  Advocate's secretary among the particular persons who happened to draft the Bills. As a matter of fact, though the Lord Advocate's secretary might sometimes get some of the amount, there had been only one instance in modern times when he got the whole. In remarking on" this expenditure for drafting Bills, the hon. Member asked where were these Scotch Bills, and said that he only knew of one, the Rating Bill. But a great many Bills were drafted that did not pass, and one reason why more did not pass was because the hon. Member for Mid Lanark talked out the Bills in front and raised objection after 12 o'clock.
  MR. CALDWELL: On public grounds.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid no doubt the hon. Member acted on public grounds; that he did so on private grounds was not suspected. But Bills had to be drafted, and when the work was done it had to be paid for. If more Bills were not passed, the hon. Member knew quite as much about the reasons for that as himself. As to the figures and items on page 65, the hon. Member had really solved his own conundrum; it was a simple arithmetical process. The next question of the hon. Gentleman was of more general importance, and had reference to cir cumstances attending the proceedings of a colliery owner to obtain possession of a cottage occupied by a miner. Upon that subject he had answered several questions from the hon. Member, and could not see that there was any grievance to complain of. The hon. Member had quoted one of the answers given to a supplementary question, and that answer was given on the assumption that the case was one of regular eviction under process, and in which there would be a warrant. But that did not turn out to be so. The owner wished to evict a man who had occupied the house as a condition of service—a common arrangement enough—and gave the man 40 days' notice to remove. Surely it was not a grievance that this notice was given instead of a week's notice? As time went on the miner again got work at the colliery, but he was not told that he could return to the house, and, in fact, he knew that it had
  164
  been re-let. It was made a grievance that the man was turned out without process. Of course, a process of summary eviction meant a petition for ejectment, and the expenses would fall upon the parties. The proposition of the hon. Member came to this—that it was wrong for the man to leave the house without a warrant to compel him to leave it. The fact was the man left peaceably. No doubt the police were on the scene, but they were specially told by the Chief Constable that they were to take no part in the eviction, but that they were merely there to preserve order if a breach of the peace was threatened. The miner might have stayed in the house, and might have been subjected to the consequences and expenses of a petition of ejectment, but he went without that. There did not appear to be any grievance in the matter, and the action of the authorities could not be called in question. The last question of the hon. Member had reference to the delay between the informations and a certain prosecution, with the facts of which he was not acquainted, but no doubt on Monday information would be received to enable an answer to be given.
  MR. CALDWELLasked, was it to be the position of the law in Scotland that if a colliery owner was the owner of a dwelling-house, and the tenant did not remove at the time he was bound to remove, the owner could forthwith remove the tenant and his furniture, and it would not be a breach of the peace, and that, so far as the authorities were concerned, the man was not entitled to protection or redress? In these days, when important questions arose on mining matters and led to disputes, that would be a dangerous doctrine for the Lord Advocate to give countenance to. It was not a peaceable operation that was carried out; the man struggled, and did all he could to prevent removal. It was a dangerous doctrine to countenance that such things could be done without any warrant. The man was forcibly dispossessed against his own exertions to remain, and yet the Lord Advocate said that that was not a case which called for the interference of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman accused him of having

  165
  blocked Scotch Bills. He was not aware of having done anything of the kind. The only Bill he spoke upon was the Housing of the Working Classes Bill. The only other Bill was the Public Health (Scotland) Bill, and he did not speak a word upon that at all. The Government brought in the Bill and they dropped the Bill. No one knew why they brought it in, and no one knew why they dropped it. His complaint was that if they paid £800 a year for drafting Bills, they should at least have some value for their money.
  MR. ALEXANDER UREsaid he had listened carefully to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark in regard to the eviction of a miner, and he should say that it appeared to him to be a question for a civil action between citizens with which the time of Parliament should not have been taken up. He protested against disputes between private citizens being brought before the House, and Members of the Executive Government being asked to intervene in matters which were wholly outside their province. In regard to the appointment of Sheriff - Clerks and Procurator fiscals, he was glad to hear that the Lord Advocate drew a broad distinction between the two, for really their work lay in different spheres of administration. He thought it would be a bad thing to allow a Procurator-fiscal to engage in private practice in a district in which he conducted prosecutions; but when they required a Procurator-fiscal to give up his private practice they should give him some compensation in the shape of an increase of salary. It was different, however, in the case of Sheriff-Clerks. Their official duties never brought them into conflict with their private practice, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his resolution to appoint the best man to the post of Sheriff-Clerk without regard to the question of private practice.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that he had never heard a speech more out of place than the speech to which the Committee had just listened, especially as it came from a Scotch representative. This case of eviction had aroused the greatest interest in every mining centre in Scotland. The Scotch
  166
  Members were petitioned to bring it before Parliament; it was brought before Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman, who represented a mining constituency, lectured the hon. Member for Mid Lanark—who had been 12 years in the House, while the hon. Gentleman had been there only one year—for having brought the matter forward. When the hon. Gentleman returned to his constituency he would find some miners there who would want an explanation for his censure of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. The point involved in the case was not at all a question of notice. The point was that the man had been evicted without a warrant. The whole question in the recent coal strike hinged upon the power of the owners to turn miners out of their houses with the aid of the law. But here was a case in which there was no warrant at all, and in which, therefore, the law was broken. The Lord Advocate had not dealt with that particular point.
  MR. UREsubmitted that no breach of the criminal law was committed. The matter was entirely one for a civil Court.
  MR. MCLEODsaid the facts had evidently been misrepresented, and he protested against being lectured as he had been by the hon. Member.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that if the matter had been merely one of civil right he would not have brought it before the Committee, but it involved a criminal offence which was within the cognisance of the Lord Advocate. A tenant occupied a dwelling-house for six years; a master came down with six men and, without any legal warrant, told him to go; his furniture was turned into the street, and he was dispossessed against his will. He would have been within his legal right in resisting this by force. He could have shot the man. [Loud laughter.] It was not in the interest of peace or order that men should be driven to defend themselves in this way by physical force. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Vote agreed to.
  6. £3,795, to complete the sum for Crofters' Commission—Agreed to.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £595,922 (including a Supplementary sum of £4,125), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Public Education in Scotland,"
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the educational year had been uneventful in Scotland in contradistinction to that in England, but it had been a year of steady progress. The grant asked for was £1,131,000, showing an increase over last year of £39,835, which was accounted for in this way: £18,000 odd was for day scholars and £10,000 odd for evening scholars, and £6,265 for fee grants. The total amount of the fee grant for the year was £303,609. The method of calculating the grant had been changed. It had now been placed on the basis the Scotch Education Department had always contended for of 10s. per head on the attendance, instead of, as hitherto, the 11–80ths of the sum allowed to England. Pending any further settlement of the pension question, an increase of £260 had been made in the Estimate for pensions, giving £4,885 in all for that purpose. Another feature of novelty was the grant for agricultural education, which, at the beginning of the financial year, was transferred to the Education Department, and upon that Vote there was an increase of £300. The attendance had increased by about 9,500. The total attendance was 587,931, there being a gratifying increase in the percentage of the older children. There had been enormous progress in the evening schools, the figures for 1895 being 45,487, as compared with 11,363 in 1890, 13,513 in 1891, 16,007 in 1892, 19,575 in 1893, and 32,934 in 1894. [Cheers.] In regard to free education, 97 '09 of the scholars were free, leaving only 2·91 who paid fees. Another matter in which there was a very satisfactory result was the question of the leaving certificates, in regard to which there had also been a very great increase, the total being 15,700 this year, as against 13,000 last year. He might mention that schemes had been
  168
  received and approved of for all the burgh and county committees for the year 1895–96, and a new minute had been approved of by Parliament, under which the new committees were being elected to submit schemes for the present financial year. The chief feature of difference between that and the older minute was that, in order to induce local authorities to hand over the amount dealt with by them, there was a proposal to give them additional representation on the Committees.
  MR. J. M. WHITEmoved to report progress on the ground that, as other business had to be taken at 11 o' clock, there was no time adequately to discuss such an important subject as Scotch education, to which they might give an hour the following day.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYagreed to this proposal on the condition that certain other business should have precedence over the discussion on this Vote.
  SIR W. HARCOURTconsidered the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman a fair one.
  MR. CALDWELLcomplained that the Scotch Members had hardly been fairly treated in this matter. It was understood that they were to get a reasonable time for the discussion of Scotch Votes. As a matter of fact, the Votes did not come on until nine o' clock that night, so that they had only had two hours for discussion. He believed that they had only had a day altogether for the consideration of Scotch Estimates, and, at any rate, they had not had anything like a fair proportion of the time of the House for the discussion of Scotch business. Then, again, only the previous night, in order that hon. Members might get away at a quarter past two that morning, they were asked to pass, without discussion, 11 Votes.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, it was seven.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid they had had the opportunity of discussing two Votes, which he did not think they had discussed at any inordinate length. He recognised that the arrangement which had been entered into must be carried out, but he hoped the First Lord might arrange that they should have some

  169
  little time on Monday, say, for the purpose of making some remarks on this Education Vote.
  MR. MCLEODsaid he did not think that they ought to be asked to take such an important Vote as this within 10 minutes of the hour when it was arranged the other business should be taken. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might fairly congratulate himself on the progress made to-day, because he got Votes which made up a very substantial amount indeed. When he kept in view the fact that so far he had only allowed one day and some three hours for the consideration of the Scotch Estimates, he really thought he should consent to the Motion to report progress.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he could hardly make any complaint of the length of time taken up on Scotch Estimates, but the Leader of the Opposition had expressed the opinion that the offer he had made was a very fair one. They had got Monday up to 10 o'clock for Supply. They had got, if the House did not insist on dividing on all the unconsidered Votes, from 10 o'clock on Monday until one o'clock, or whatever hour the House chose, for Report of Supply, and they had until 10 o'clock on Tuesday for further Report of Supply. Therefore there might be many Votes which were never considered in Committee which might receive adequate discussion on Report. He would suggest that to-night hon. Gentlemen might give them the following Votes:—Class 2, No. 18, No. 22, No. 25, and No. 26; Class 3—No. 10; Class 4—No. 4, and No. 5; Class 6—
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think you have got enough.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Very well.
  MR. MCLEODprotested against this system of taking Votes. Many hon. Members had gone home under the impression that the whole of the night would be occupied with the Scotch Votes. But of the Votes mentioned by the Leader of the House that for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons raised important questions, and he hoped it would not be taken to-night.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he and his friends were anxious to meet as far as
  170
  possible the reasonable demands made by the Leader of the House, but at the same time it was necessary to enforce the just right of Members to discuss Supply. The stress of public business was so great that last night they passed seven Votes without a word of discussion, and now they were asked to pass some 10 or 12 more in a like manner. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take any Vote that was seriously objected to.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had not the least desire to press Votes which hon. Members had conscientious scruples to passing, without discussion.
  Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed:—Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £22,036, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Commons."
  MR. MCLEODsaid he had already objected to this Vote being taken without discussion. One matter he wished to raise was the dismissal of Mr. John Bull. [A laugh, and "That must be raised on the House of Lords Vote."] He thought it could be raised on this Vote. He, however, objected to the Vote being taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist. He had not put down the House of Lords Vote, because he understood there were some questions hon. Members wished to raise.
  MR. MCLEODsaid there was an important question to be raised upon the Vote, and that was the way in which the officers of the House were being worked. If it was to be an established rule that the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule—
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that the hon. Gentleman could not enter upon such a question on this Vote.
  MR. LEWISwished to raise a question if the Leader of the House intended to insist on taking the Vote.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he would not press the Vote if it was really opposed.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether it would not be possible to have attached to the House an officer whose duty it would be to inform Members what business was in progress. [Laughter.]
  *MR. HANBURYsaid the whole arrangements of the House were under a Special Committee or commission consisting of the Speaker and high officers, and, therefore, he could make no promise. He would see, however, that the matter was mentioned to the Committee.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  The following Votes were agreed to without discussion:—
  7. £42, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
  8. £4,500, to complete the sum for Public Works Loan Commission.
  9. £27,266, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, England.
  10. £36,850, to complete the sum for Works and Public Buildings Office.
  11. £14,000, to complete the sum for Secret Service.

  CLASS III.
  12. £21,943, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

  CLASS IV.
  13. £109,784 (including a Supplementary sum of £6,000), to complete the sum for British Museum.
  14. £7,286, to complete the sum for National Gallery.
  15. £3,066, to complete the sum for National Portrait Gallery.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPEcalled attention to the question of a vacant space which might possibly be available in a short time, and which he hoped would not be taken up for any other purpose except in connection with the National Portrait Gallery.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the matter was under consideration and it should not be lost sight of.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1890 (ORDERS).
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved—
  "That this House disapproves of the regulations made and prescribed by the Local Government Board under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896."
  He thought all the Members of the House who had perused these regulations would come to the conclusion that they were the most extraordinary set of regulations ever laid on the Table of the House. Although they were nominally laid upon the Table in July it was really only yesterday that they came into the hands of Members, so that there had been very little opportunity for perusing them. He thought they should be able to point out very clearly that these regulations proposed to revolutionise the whole system of rating in England and Wales. [Sir W. HARCOURT: "Hear, hear!"] At present there were two systems of rating in this country—in the urban districts they had a separate valuation, land and buildings being in one category and the farmhouse in another category. In the rural districts they had simply one valuation—the farmhouse, buildings and the land were all in one category. By the Agricultural Rates Act it was incumbent upon the overseers throughout the whole of the Kingdom to make a separate valuation, and to put the farmhouse and buildings in one category and the land in another, which was totally different to what they had at present. That had never been done before for the purposes of rating. The

  173
  overseers were called upon to effect a complete revolution in the system of rating. That was a thing which he would remind the hon. and learned Member for Stroud—who was a great authority upon rating—that he once told the House of Commons was absolutely impossible. There were three parties who were as a rule affected, the ratepayer himself, the other ratepayers in the parish, and the neighbouring parishes. Under the regulations of the Agricultural Rating Act the Government had introduced for the first time a provision that affected not only the individual and collective ratepayers, but the general taxpayers. To show how important it was that the valuations under those regulations should be carefully made he might point out that an over-valuation of a farm building of £5 would make a difference of £150,000 per annum to the general taxpayers of the kingdom. The separate valuation of the whole of the agricultural land and buildings in the country was, according to the regulations to be made by the overseers, who were generally farmers, and therefore, utterly untrained to the work; and they were called upon to make that valuation by September 7, 1896. In order to show the utter absurdity of the regulation he would remind the House that under the Union Assessment Act of 1852, when the overseers were called upon to make a separate valuation of every parish in the kingdom, they were allowed three months in which to do the, work, although they had the basis of existing valuations and, above all, the more important basis of the rent on which to work. In the present instance there was no such basis to go upon, because the rent was not apportioned between the buildings on the one hand and the land on the other. The overseer's would be called upon to do all this work in throe weeks, and in the certain event of their failing to discharge the duty in the allotted time the assessment committee would be called upon to discharge it in seven days. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] That meant that the assessment committee would have to make a separate valuation of farm buildings and farm land in some 30 or 40 parishes within seven days. Could anything be more preposterous than such a proposal? ["Hear, hear!"] But that
  174
  was not the whole of this tale of woe. The assesssment committee would have to make out a fresh valuation list for every parish, and revise and examine every separate valuation. For this they would have 21 days. They were not paid men. How were they to do it in the time unless they had all-night sittings? ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Then the surveyor of taxes came in; and he was the only check suggested by the Government against extravagant valuation. It would be his duty to see that every farmhouse and building throughout the union had its proper valuation placed upon it. If he did not do that he would be worthless. As a rule there was a surveyor of taxes for each union, comprising 20 or 30 parishes. And for all this work he would have 14 days. A more ridiculous suggestion never emanated from a Government or a public department. Then the surveyor of taxes made his objections to the overseer, who had seven days to examine them, and then there were the appeals to the special sessions, which would, of course be composed of the landowners in the district. It was the same thing as lawyers taxing their own bills of costs. They were directly interested in keeping down the valuation of farmhouses and buildings. And to hear every appeal which might arise in the union the special sessions would have ten days. If they sat every day and all day they could not do it. Then there was another fatal flaw. Under the old valuations there was the right of appeal to the individual ratepayer, to the parish, and to every person aggrieved. The overseer had three months to prepare the valuation, and then he had to deposit the valuation for 14 days in the parish where every ratepayer could inspect it, and, finally, 28 days were given for notice of appeal. But in these new regulations, though a separate valuation was to be made of farm buildings in which every farmer was interested, there was no provision for the valuation being deposited, and no individual ratepayer had a right of appeal. These were regulations for the purpose of carrying out the Act. Now by the regulations they prescribed that the moment the lists were ready, they were to be sent to the assessment committee and no opportunity was given to any ratepayer to examine them.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: The Act enables the ratepayer to appear on an appeal brought by the surveyor of taxes or the overseers.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: Oh! of course, but that is a very different thing. He knew the Act did that, but that was exactly what he complained of. He challenged the Solicitor-General to point out a single article in the regulations which gave the individual ratepayer aggrieved by the valuation a right of initiating an appeal. The Solicitor-General was judiciously silent.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Act, he will see that the regulations could not, if they conformed to the Act, give any such right.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Do you say there ought to be no right of appeal?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I say the Act has determined that, and the regulations must follow the Act.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is all very well.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Solicitor General had now made it perfectly clear. In the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, no farmer in the country, no matter to what extent he was aggrieved by the valuation, had any right to complain. The Debate would have served a good purpose if it made that clear to the farmers. Another point was that there was no right of appeal in these regulations from any aggrieved parish. This was not a question arising between individual ratepayers, it was a question between one parish and another, because it was amply brought out in the course of the Debates that if in consequence of this Act the rate increased, the deficit would have to be made up by the Urban District. Now an Urban District ought to have a right to lodge objections against a rate if it was too low. There were two checks provided by the regulations, and these were not in the Act. The first of the checks was the minimum of one-eighth. The second check was the Surveyor of Taxes. He only got 14 days in order to examine the whole valuation of every parish in his district. There was no staff provided by the Regulations. The men who collected the taxes at present were the Assistant Overseers—that is to say, the very men who prepared this
  176
  valuation. As a rule they were farmers' sons, and it was very unlikely that they were going to assist the Surveyor of Taxes to overturn their own valuations. The Government ought to have provided Regulations which would be a check to extravagance, but here a valuation was to be made by Overseers whose practical interest it was to put buildings as low and land as high as possible. They were, moreover, dealing with the Treasury, not with their own parish; as a rule they were farmers themselves, and therefore they had a great incentive in dealing with the Treasury to see that no check should be put upon their parish. The Overseers had three weeks in order to do the work, and to return a statement according to the best estimate the Overseers could make, which really meant the best guess they could make. After this the valuations went to the Assessment Committee, which was constituted of the same type of farmers and landowners of the district, who had no inducement to correct the Valuation Lists and to keep them down. There was an appeal to Special Sessions and Quarter Sessions, but here again the appeal would be made to the same class, that is to say, to the landowners and farmers. Indeed, the only check provided by the regulations of the Government was the Surveyor of Taxes, and that check had practically been rendered impotent and powerless. The Surveyor of Taxes had to do his work in 14 days, and even if he cycled over his district, it would be impossible for him to do the work in the time. In fact, the Regulations were a sham, and elaborate precautions had been taken in order to provide beforehand that they should be a sham. It was said that the Government were going to deal liberally in this matter of the rates, but this was not a question of making a fair and honest valuation in order to protect the taxpayers of the towns and the labourers. It was a question of making a rough-and-ready valuation, and putting the whole thing in the hands of the Overseers to make a valuation which should eventually be submitted to landowners and others constituting a Court of Appeal.
  *SIR C. DILKEseconded the Resolution. He had some acquaintance with this matter from the Assessment Committee's side, and he knew a good deal

  177
  about the working of Overseers in country parishes. He had read the Regulations with some care, and he was bound to say that they threw upon Overseers duties which he believed they were in-competent to perform in the time given to them. He did not agree that this was the fault of the Regulations; it was the fault of the Bill; but those Regulations brought out the fact that the Bill had been so drawn that it was impossible fairly to work it, and impossible for the parishes to perform the duties which the Bill threw upon them. He had no fault to find with the Regulations as Regulations. He believed the Local Government Board, in drawing them up, had done its best to carry out the Bill; but, notwithstanding, he believed that the Bill was throwing upon the Overseers duties which they could not possibly discharge. There had been some experience of what Overseers were called upon to perform in connection with difficult duties like those under discussion in the past. He considered that the Overseers, and, above all, the Assistant Overseers, were an admirable body of men. They did their work honestly and efficiently, and he should like to preserve them in connection with the registration of voters for example; but Parliament was in the habit of throwing upon them, year after year, duties so complicated that it would almost take the talent of lawyers to understand them. Take the Service Franchise as an example. The duties here were so difficult that hardly any registration lawyer in the country could explain what the duties of the Overseers were. Several years ago the Overseers broke down under the Parish Councils portion of the Local Government Act. It had been his business to make a good many inquiries in representative rural parishes in different parts of the country as to the working of the Act, and he found that they had thrown upon these officers duties so complicated, to be carried out in a time so short, that it was practically impossible for them to discharge them in the allotted time. Taking the best of the Assistant Overseers in small rural parishes, he should like to know what the House could expect of men who were paid the present salary. A small Overseer might be a farmer's son, and he would be called upon to discharge
  178
  duties which no lawyer or land surveyor could possibly discharge in the time. It was not the fault of the Local Government Board that such early dates had been fixed, but the fault of the Bill. The, result would be that the best estimate that the Overseers could make would be mere guesswork. But supposing that the Assessment Committees were resorted to, what would happen? The farmers who constituted the Committees would probably not do the work themselves. It would be intrusted to their clerks, who would employ other people who would have to be well paid. The consequence would be that the cost involved would be greater than the return which the localities would receive from the Treasury under the Act.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved that the right hon. Baronet had said that the Regulations were admirably drawn for the purpose of carrying out the Act. But the right hon. Baronet said that the Act was a bad one, and therefore he seconded a Motion to withhold the assent of the House to the Regulations. Was ever such a proceeding heard of before? ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR C. DILKEreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Debate on that part of the Bill relating to the Regulations was closured, and that, therefore, hon. Members had not been able to discuss it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that he should be sorry to renew the painful history of the Debates on the Bill, which was fully and amply discussed. ["Hear, hear!"] The Measure was now the law of the land, and it imposed upon the Local Government Board the duty of making these Regulations, and if they were admirably drawn, as the right hon. Baronet admitted, in the name of common sense, why did he second a Motion disapproving of them? ["Hear, hear!"] What had been said by the hon. Member who made the Motion was very familiar to his ears; he had heard the same remarks more than once before. The speech of the hon. Member was a belated attack upon the Act. The hon. Member said that the time allotted to certain business was too short, but it was the Act that prescribed the dates, and none others could have been fixed in the Regulations. Then the hon. Member declared that it

  179
  was a difficult, if not an impossible, task to separate the value of buildings from the value of the land. [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE said that he had only quoted that statement.] Yes; but the hon. Member quoted it for the purpose of showing that the Regulations imposed an impossible task upon the Overseers. That duty was imposed, not by the Regulations, but by the Act. The difficulty of that duty had been very much exaggerated. There were districts in the country where the separation had been already effected. These Regulations gave the clearest possible directions to the Overseers as to the mode in which that separation was to be effected, and the difficulty that had been conjured up was, to a very large extent, an imaginary one. Then it was said that it was monstrous that an aggrieved ratepayer should not have an appeal against a valuation. That very question was raised in Section 6, and that section was amended by a provision allowing any ratepayer to be beard on an appeal brought by the Surveyor of Taxes or the Overseers. Again, that was not an objection to the Regulations, but to the Act. It could not be suggested that the Regulations should fly in the face of the Act and give the ratepayer this appeal. ["Hear, hear!"] If they did so it would be good ground for the House refusing to sanction them. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Overseers were incompetent for these duties.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said they were incompetent.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid he distinctly heard the hon. Member say that the Overseers would be under very great temptation to put the value of the building too low. Did he mean that the Overseers were incompetent or that they were dishonest? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I said that they could not do the work in three weeks' time.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: That was not the point at all. The hon. Gentleman said the Overseers would be under an irresistible temptation to put the value too low. Again, this work was not imposed on them by the Regulations, but by the Act. The Regulations provided that the Surveyor of Taxes might authorise persons to appear for him, and he would not, therefore, be
  180
  tied down to the possibility of appearing only in one place and on one occasion. He did not desire to dwell on these points, for he listened with curiosity to see when the hon. Member would come to any objection to the Regulations, and he ventured to say that his speech throughout was a renewal of objections which had been stated over and over again, to the Act, and did not contain one syllable of objection to the Regulations as such. Anyone examining the dates in detail would find, having regard to what had to be done, that the time allowed was not so inadequate as the hon. Gentleman supposed; and the 21st Regulation gave the Local Government Board power, if under any special circumstances more time was wanted, to extend the time.
  SIR W. HARCOURTconfessed that he was extremely surprised at the aggressive tone which had been assumed by the Solicitor General on this subject. The statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon was a very calm statement. [Ironical Ministerial laughter."] Why these ill-bred interruptions? [Cheers.] Why was a person not to be allowed to speak without what he might call these vulgar cheers from Gentlemen who ought to know better? He claimed the right to discuss this matter in spite of interruptions of that kind. What they had to examine was how far these Regulations were likely to fairly carry out the objects of the Bill. He entirely differed from the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean as to these Regulations—as to their character and their bearing upon the Bill—and if he entertained the right hon. Gentleman's opinion upon the subject he certainly should not have seconded this Motion or have supported it. [Laughter.] When you condemned Regulations you did not begin by saying they were perfect. [Laughter.] When the Bill was first discussed the Leader of the House said it was a single-clause Bill and that it was a question of machinery. These Regulations were the machinery, and they wanted to see what the machinery was like. ["Hear, hear!"] The moment these Regulations appeared there was found in this document of 87 pages the commentary on the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, and commentaries were often a hundred

  181
  times longer than the text to which they were attached. A more extraordinary, more unworkable, more impracticable set of Regulations he had never seen. ["Hear!"] The fact was these Regulations were in themselves the machinery referred to in the Bill. If these had been part of the Bill they never would have passed, and when examined they would he found impossible of execution. This was the machinery the Leader of the House spoke of as so simple. And what was the machinery? When the Bill was before the House he ventured to say it was a revolution in the rating system of the country, and these Regulations were the means by which the revolution was to be carried out. It was idle for the Solicitor General to say it was all the fault of the Bill; they knew that perfectly well. They would comment on these Regulations, and they would be commented upon in every parish in the country as an illustration of what the Bill was; the value of these Regulations was that they illustrated the character of the Bill. The Bill, as they had always maintained, revolutionised the whole system of taxation of this country. The Solicitor General was not extremely wise in relying upon the Bill. That Bill was carried through all-night sittings, and it was in attempting to deal with this machinery that his hon. Friend was suspended. ["Hear!"] He endeavoured to discuss this very machinery, and, though the Solicitor General now said: "The Bill is passed; what is the use of discussing the machinery?" the machinery was before the House, and the machinery showed the character of the Bill. These Regulations would be discussed in the House, and elsewhere they would be criticised by those who had to carry them out, and by those who suffered from them in every parish. Those who had to carry out the Regulations would be the real enemies of the Bill. It was necessary to examine how the Bill would be carried into operation. First, the spending authorities were to make their returns to the Local Government Board on September 1st. These spending authorities were County Councils, Borough Councils, District Councils, Guardians, and School Boards. In this portentous document there were 60 pages of Schedules, etc., which the
  182
  various authorities under the Bill were to fill up. They were to fill it up in the last fortnight in August. These spending authorities were to send in their Returns by the 7th of September. He should like to know where these spending authorities were at this moment. A great many of them were abroad, and a good many of them had gone to Scotland, and all these spending authorities were to come back in the middle of August, and make these returns. And they were not simple returns. The first return was to be as to what the rating was in the last year. That was not a simple thing, because they were instructed to report whether or not there were any exceptional circumstances in the rating of the past year which should not make that the proper basis—that was, the basis for five years, and probably for very much longer than five years when once it was made. And now, at a time when everybody was absent on their holidays, they had to return, and, within a fortnight, to make these returns. That was, according to his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, an admirable provision.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid he did not say so. He said that under the Bill they could not get a longer time.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Why not a longer time?
  *SIR C. DILKE: Because you cannot. There is not room for it.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid this Bill was to be carried out in March, and his right hon. Friend said they could not give longer time than the 7th of September. He did not understand, and he did not think it was so. This was to be the basis of an entire change in the rating system of the country, and, as far as the spending authorities were concerned, it was to be accomplished by the 7th of September. If that was a necessity of the Bill and of the Regulations, he said it was preposterous, and absurd, and impracticable. But if this was so with reference to the spending authorities he had already named, it was a far more serious thing with reference to the Overseers. The First Lord of the Treasury had given them the benefit of his opinion upon this Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid what he dealt with were the

  183
  clauses of the Bill after the first and second clauses. They had nothing whatever to do with the Regulations.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the Regulations arose entirely out of the machinery clauses. It was to carry out the machinery clauses that these Regulations were brought in—machinery clauses which were passed at an all-night sitting, and that was really the cause of the absurdity of the arrangement. They had no means of discussing the clauses, otherwise they might have prevented it, and the result was necessarily to produce the preposterous absurdities that appeared on the face of the Regulations. Let them see what the Overseers were to do. They were to undertake a task which was pooh-poohed by the Solicitor General, who was extremely learned in the law, but who, he ventured to say, knew extremely little about the actual administration of the Overseers in English parishes. It was an exceptional thing for Overseers to make out a separate valuation. He regarded the opinion of the Solicitor General on matters of law with the greatest veneration, but, when he laid down the law as to parish administration, he must allow him to have his opinion. The Overseers were, being set to do what they had no knowledge or experience of whatever. If ordered to do things they were not accustomed to they ought at least to be allowed decent time. But by September 7th they were expected to have valued every tenement in the parish, separating the value of the land from that of the houses. It was an impossible task, and one they could not and would not do. Besides, most of the Overseers were farmers, and between now and September 7th they would be engaged in the harvest. A more ridiculous, preposterous, and absurd proposal than that of the Government it was impossible to conceive. As to making a valuation on a basis of the character proposed in the Regulations, anyone who knew anything of rural life knew the thing was absurd. ["Hear, hear!"] Suppose the Overseer did not do it, what was the provision in the Regulations? That the Assessment Committee might appoint a man to come and value every enement in the parish and separate the buildings from the land. How long had this man, who had never seen the parish before,
  184
  got in which to perform the work? He had to do it in seven days. Any man acquainted with the country must know that that was absolutely and totally impracticable. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, the Bill provided for no appeal by the ratepayer against an unjust assessment. Why was that? Because the Government chose to pass a Bill of this kind, dealing with a great reform of the rating system of England, at all-night sittings. The subject, requiring the greatest care in its treatment, never had consideration in that House nor in the Committee from which the Bill emanated. ["Hear, hear?"] Having passed a Bill revolutionising the whole rating of the country, and which was to govern it for years, in two all-night sittings, they were then going to inquire how the thing ought to be done. ["Hear, hear!"] The Solicitor General thought it was very unimportant whether the ratepayer was to have an appeal against an unjust assessment. Did he think that when these Regulations went to the parishes in England, and all the ratepayers found they were deprived of this advantage of appeal, which they had always had and to which in justice they were entitled, they would be put off in this off-hand manner? He knew very little of the rural parishes in England if he thought so. ["Hear, hear!"] He had mentioned two classes of authorities through whom this new system of rating had to be passed. They next came to the Assessment Committees, and after the Overseers had gone through this task, which they had had no time to perform, it became the duty of the Assessment Committee to review their imperfect work. Everybody must know that by September 7th the work would require a great deal of review. What was the time given to the Assessment Committee for this purpose? As the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said, the Assessment Committee might have to deal with a dozen or two dozen parishes, and this imperfect work of the Overseers had to be reviewed by the Assessment Committee in three weeks. Again he said it was ridiculous and preposterous. Every man who knew anything about the work that was to be done in cases of this kind, knew perfectly well that in the month of September, when everybody was wanting and taking their holidays, it was impossible, even if they

  185
  kept them up all night, as the First Lord kept them up to pass his Bill, that they could do the work which these Regulations imposed upon them. Then he came to a matter in which he took a deep interest, and that was the position of the Surveyor of Taxes in this matter. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had properly pointed out that the natural anxiety of all these local authorities was to get as much money out of the Exchequer as they possibly could. There was no special original sin in people who had that desire, but he wanted to see what protection was given under these Regulations against this robbing of the Exchequer. What was the Surveyor of Taxes to do? All these valuations, which were to be made by the Overseers in a fortnight or three weeks, were to be reviewed by the Assessment Committee, and then the Surveyor of Taxes was to have his say in the matter. In those Regulations they found the form in which the Overseers wore to state to the Surveyor of Taxes the grounds on which the buildings and other hereditaments were valued at less than the rental, and then the Surveyor of Taxes was to examine whether those grounds were sufficient. How was he to examine them? He must go into the parishes, and he must inquire into matters of which he had no personal knowledge whatever. If he must protect the revenue he must go there and examine why those valuations are below the rental, and he was allowed 10 days to go through all the parishes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he was allowed from the 7th of September to the 17th of October to decide whether he would assent to the valuations, or whether he would make objections.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid it was stated on Page 10 of the Regulations:—
  "The Surveyor of Taxes shall, within fourteen days of the receipt by him of the notice of any corrections of the Overseers' statement by the Assessment Committee, or within fourteen days after the Third day of October, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, if he has then received no notice of any such corrections, give to the Committee notice of his objections to the statement or to any correction hereof on the ground (a) that any separately valued hereditament has been wrongly entered as agricultural land, or (b) that the value of such buildings and other hereditaments not being agricultural land as are included in a separately valued hereditament,
  186
  comprising also agricultural land, has been under-estimated, and in the latter case shall state the gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings and other hereditaments, not being agricultural laid, which, in his opinion, should be inserted in the statement."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that in the first instance the statement was to be sent by the Overseers to the Surveyor of Taxes.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the Solicitor General was quite wrong. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have read the clause.
  "The Surveyor of Taxes shall, within the time within which he is required to give notice of his objections, if any, to the statement or any correction thereof, state in what cases he consents and in what cases he refuses his consent to the valuation of any buildings and other hereditaments being fixed at less than the minimum rateable value."
  That was Schedule M.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to the First clause of Article IV., he would find that:—
  "The Overseers of every Parish shall, as soon as practicable, make, and shall, on or before the Seventh day of September, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, send to the Assessment Committee and to the Surveyor of Taxes in whose district the Parish is comprised, statements as follows."
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the Assessment Committee might change the whole thing, and when the Return came to the Surveyor of Taxes he would only have 14 days to examine it. That was insufficient time. The burden of all these rating reforms was to be borne by that class of ratepayer's who would get no relief under the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] They were, in fact, to pay all the expenses of the proceedings, and all these unfortunate people were to be called upon to perform the duties within a limited time, and if they failed they were to be fined 40s. Fancy these instructions being sent to the ordinary overseers, who were generally small farmers! He must say that he never, in the whole course of his life, heard of a more ridiculous or preposterous proposal. What in the world did it all mean? This was a great rating reform; and regulations more unfitted to carry out, more impracticable, he never before heard of. He supposed the Solicitor General would make up his mind

  187
  as to the staff he was going to supply. It was impossible to describe the absurdity which characterised these instructions. What was the meaning of all this desperate hurry, of the all-night sitting, and of this revolution in the rating system of this country? They all knew very well that it was to grab the surplus. Why was this limit of time fixed to make the overseers do what they could not do? It was to prevent the two millions slipping out of their fingers. Next year they might not have a surplus. That was why they obliged the local spending authorities to do everything by the 1st September, and the overseers by the 7th September, and that was the reason why the Bill had been pushed through in the small hours of the morning without deliberation; a Bill on which regulations of this character had been founded. He could only call this a hugger-mugger policy, and the Bill was a harum-scarum Bill. Gentlemen who transacted business in the small hours of the morning were very apt to be confused, and to produce work like that which they had in these regulations. They complained that the whole of this Measure, which involved enormous financial consequences, both local and Imperial, had been huddled through the House without any due consideration of the importance of the matter, with the result that regulations of this character were founded upon it. The object was, without due consideration, to get hold of a large sum of money taken from the taxpayers of this country for the benefit of one particular class. The reason why he condemned these regulations was because they were intended to deal with a large sum of public money which had been unjustly taken from the taxpayers of the country without the subject having been adequately considered by Parliament. Such a principle as was involved in these regulations was calculated to do an immense injustice to the general taxpayers of the country. The Solicitor General himself had admitted that how-over unjust these valuations might be, there was no power to appeal against them.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Henry Chaplin,)said that he had more than once been under
  188
  the apprehension that the right hon. Gentleman was about to indulge in another Second Reading speech upon the Agricultural Rating Act.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This is practically the First Reading of it. We had no opportunity for discussing the Measure.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he did not know whether there was really anything in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which called for a reply on his part.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then why do you not move the Closure?
  An HON. MEMBER: A most vulgar interruption.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that the hon. Member for Carnarvon had, in the course of his speech, described these regulations as being ridiculous, while the right hon. Gentleman opposite bad described them as constituting the grossest imposture he had ever known. He had, therefore, been extremely glad to hear such a high authority upon matters of local government as the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean express his approval of the regulations in contradiction to the wild and foolish assertions that had been uttered with reference to them. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had complained of these regulations, and had said that if they had been embodied in the Bill that Measure would never have been passed into law. The Government were quite as well aware of that fact as the right hon. Gentleman himself was. The Government knew of the unexampled and unprecedented powers of obstruction in the face of which the proceedings of Parliament in the present day had to be conducted. Never before had a Leader of an Opposition thrown himself so openly and avowedly into the arms of the obstructionists as the right hon. Gentleman had done. The overseers would be able to do their work in time, because they would be totally free from the terrible obstruction which Parliament had to encounter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the overseers could never complete their work by the 7th September. What was to prevent them from doing so? They would have all the necessary materials for making the valuation in their hands. The former

  189
  were divided into two heads. There were those which related to past expenditure to be settled by the spending authorities, and then there were those which related to assessments in the future. There were upwards of 48 of these forms in the first class and only 19 in the second. There were 10 spending authorities, and it might fairly he asked why it was that more than 48 different kinds of forms were required for 10 spending authorities. There were two reasons for it. In the first place, Parliament had required that these regulations should be laid on the Table for a certain number of days before they acquired the force of law, and, consequently, the Local Government Board had been compelled to be most careful to provide for every possible contingency. In the next place, some of these 10 authorities must be again subdivided. For example, they had to provide 11 different forms for one kind of spending authority alone—namely, the School Board. At the same time, no School Board would have to fill up more than one form unless alterations were made in the area or in the contributory district. The same thing held good more or less with regard to other spending authorities. With regard to the surveyor of taxes, first of all these regulations had the approval of the Treasury, and he had heard the right hon. Gentleman express unbounded confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, as regarded the buildings, the Surveyor of Taxes was protected by the minimum clause in the regulations. He was not the east surprised at the opposition to these regulations by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There was nothing the right hon. Gentleman would have stuck at by which he could further impede the effective administration of an Act of Parliament which had been supported through this House steadfastly by larger majorities than he ever remembered in the case of any Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman told them it was impossible to make this separate valuation the answer was simple; it would be done precisely in the way in which it was done now. The right hon. Gentleman would appear before the agricultural community in his true colours at last. Over and over again he had heard him profess the deepest sympathy for them
  190
  in their troubles, but he had seized with avidity every opportunity to interfere with and impede their interests. One result of these Debates would be that the right hon. Gentleman would go down to posterity as their bitterest foe, deadliest enemy, and most unscrupulous opponent.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLsaid the learned Solicitor General had characterised this Motion as an attack upon the Measure, and had said that these regulations would faithfully carry out the Act. He traversed that statement. The illustration upon which the Solicitor General had relied was a very unfortunate one for him. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the question of appeal and the provision in the rules that the occupier of the hereditament that was immediately concerned in the appeal might be heard. That provision, however, did not at all carry out what was enacted in the Act itself. He had special reason to know that, because the concession made by the Government in Committee was made in consequence of an Amendment which he had himself moved. The Act did not say that this right to be heard should be confined to the occupier of the tenement. The words in the Act purported to give that right to any aggrieved ratepayer, but by these regulations the effect of the enactment would be narrowed and restricted. A ratepayer, it should be remembered, might be aggrieved because some other ratepayer was assessed more lightly than he ought to be. Surely, the Solicitor General would not maintain that it was competent for the Local Government Board to narrow an enactment in a statute by a rule made under that statute?
  MR. LLOYD-GEOKGEsaid that he did not intend to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY [6TH AUGUST].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [6TH AUGUST].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    Class II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,573, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

    191
    in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Lunacy in Scotland."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,175, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc., in Scotland."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,591, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland, and for Expenses under the Public Health Acts, Infectious Diseases Notification Act, Vaccination Act, Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, and Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894."

    CLASS III.
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding,£26,295, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £55,356 he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."

    CLASS IV.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,960, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for a Grant to the Board of Trustees for Manufactures in Scotland in Aid of the Maintenance of the National Gallery, School of Art, and Museum of Antiquities, Scotland." Class VII.
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Grants in Aid of Expenditure upon certain Public Works, and for improved Communications, and other purposes, within the Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
    Resolutions agreed to.

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)asked for leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith. He explained that he did not intend to proceed further with the Bill this Session, but that it was brought in so that its provisions might be considered in the Recess by Boor Law authorities in Ireland.
  Bill to make further provision with respect to Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and the Attorney General for Ireland; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 337.]

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1894–5.
  (Considered in Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  1. That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1895, and the statement appended thereto, after adjusting (1) the charge of a sum of £3,143 19s. 0d., and (2) the sum of £70,635 0s. 0d, voted for Interest on advances under the Naval Defence Act 1889, but not issued in consequence of the passing of the Finance Act 1894, as follows, viz.:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £399,045 17s. 0d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £263,165 15s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services exceeded the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £135,880 1s. 5d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £71,044 9s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £63,108 8s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so

  193
  that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £7,936 0s. 2d.;

  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  237,293

  8

  2

  Total Deficits

  …

  381,109

  9

  9

  Net Deficit

  …

  £ 143,816

  1

  7

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1894–5. Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  …

  Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard and Royal Marines

  …

  97,997

  10

  1

  11,655

  10

  9

  2

  …

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  114,234

  16

  0

  13,391

  15

  5

  3

  …

  Medical Establishments and Services

  …

  5,387

  0

  6

  349

  17

  5

  4

  …

  Martial Law

  …

  395

  1

  10

  …

  38

  10

  1

  5

  …

  Educational Services

  …

  1,443

  0

  6

  …

  723

  0

  2

  6

  …

  Scientific Services

  103

  18

  9

  …

  …

  1,282

  18

  1

  7

  …

  Royal Navy Reserves

  …

  13,756

  16

  0

  …

  97

  5

  5

  8

  …

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

  Sec. 1

  …

  Personnel

  …

  479

  3

  8

  661

  2

  4

  See. 2

  …

  Materiel

  48,886

  8

  9

  …

  28,383

  10

  6

  Sec. 3

  …

  Contract Work

  …

  4,553

  14

  6

  …

  3,926

  17

  9

  9

  …

  Naval Armaments

  302,877

  3

  7

  …

  …

  57,016

  11

  7

  10

  …

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  …

  23,824

  3

  6

  5,983

  18

  9

  11

  …

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  18,217

  3

  0

  …

  1,471

  16

  3

  12

  …

  Admiralty Office

  …

  1,094

  9

  0

  …

  23

  5

  10

  13

  …

  Half-Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

  5,799

  12

  6

  …

  2,928

  11

  0

  14

  …

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

  6,278

  14

  4

  …

  5,690

  18

  9

  15

  …

  Civil Pensions and Gratuities

  10,583

  1

  8

  …

  72

  7

  11

  16

  …

  Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

  42

  16

  0

  …

  455

  0

  0

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  6,256

  18

  5

  399,045

  17

  0

  263,165

  15

  7

  71,044

  9

  1

  63,108

  8

  11

  Net Deficit, £135,880

  1

  5

  Net Deficit, £7,936

  0

  2

  Total Deficit

  £143,816

  1

  7

  Deduct—Amount voted for Interest on Advances under the Naval Defence Act 1889, not issued

  70,636

  0

  0

  Sum due from the Naval Defence Account, under 52 Vic, c. 8, s. 3 (2)

  223,200

  4

  6

  293,836

  4

  6

  Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

  £150,020

  2

  11

  4. That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1895, and the statement appended thereto, after adjusting the sum of £75,000 voted for Interest on the Imperial Defence Loan, but not
  2. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services towards meeting the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  3. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned. issued in consequence of the passing of the Finance Act 1894, as follows, viz.:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of

  195
  £55,669 0s. 5d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the Estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £386,907 6s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £331,238 5s. 9d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £102,488 9s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £7,054 15s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule, so that the total actual receipts in Aid of the Grants for Army Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £95,433 13s. 7d.;

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services, 1894–5. Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of Array (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

  …

  57,469

  9

  0

  32,724

  14

  7

  2

  Medical Establishments: Pay, etc.

  …

  1,760

  14

  10

  …

  166

  18

  5

  3

  Militia: Pay and Allowances

  …

  59,866

  14

  5

  346

  8

  1

  4

  Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances

  …

  1,755

  10

  9

  9

  15

  0

  5

  Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

  427

  2

  5

  …

  …

  168

  17

  3

  6

  Transport and Remounts

  …

  9,882

  1

  11

  912

  18

  6

  7

  Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  …

  150,061

  15

  5

  1,757

  0

  7

  8

  Clothing Establishments, and Services

  47,590

  17

  3

  …

  …

  1,972

  14

  0

  9

  Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

  …

  68,505

  1

  4

  31,714

  3

  9

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Superintending Establishment

  …

  26,495

  12

  1

  17,628

  13

  2

  11

  Military Educational Establishments: Pay and Miscellaneous Charges

  …

  136

  4

  11

  2,423

  15

  4

  12

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  3,739

  17

  4

  …

  …

  1,034

  1

  2

  13

  War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

  …

  961

  8

  1

  …

  44

  0

  8

  14

  Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc

  …

  2,199

  18

  2

  …

  3,607

  6

  1

  15

  Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

  …

  7,812

  15

  3

  14,971

  0

  4

  16

  Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

  3,433

  2

  4

  …

  …

  60

  18

  2

  Balances irrecoverable

  478

  1

  1

  55,669

  0

  5

  386,907

  6

  2

  102,488

  9

  4

  7,054

  15

  9

  Net Surplus,

  £331,238

  5

  9

  Net Deficit,

  £95,433

  13

  7

  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  297,682

  17

  6

  Total Deficits

  61,878

  5

  4

  Net Surplus

  £235,804

  12

  2

  5. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated appropriations in aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  6. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,), in answer to a question, explained that in 1894–5 (as in previous years) the Treasury exercised the power' which it possessed of transferring money from one Vote to meet increased expenditure under another Vote. That power could only be exercised temporarily. The object of the Resolution was to give the transaction a permanent character under statutory authority.
  MR. DALZIELwished to know how it was that in one case £399,000 was spent beyond the Estimate?
  *MR. HANBURYsaid that, in the year to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there was an idea of making the interest on the Suez Canal shares applicable to payment of interest on the Imperial Defence Loan; but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his Budget, altered the arrangement.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ESTATE DUTY BILL.
  On the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. DILLONsaid that if he agreed lot-he Second Reading of the Rill he must not be taken to agree to the proportion in which the grant was made. He did not know whether this course met with the approval of all his colleagues, but he should think the most convenient course would be to allow the whole question of the proportion to stand over till next year, when it could be discussed in connection with the report of the Financial Relations Commission. He felt bound even at that late hour to
  198
  point out the outrageous and extraordinary conduct of the Treasury in regard to these special grants to Ireland. Under this Rill it was proposed to go back to the old proportion of 9–80ths. When this proportion was originally adopted in the case of the Probate Duty Grant, and subsequently in the case of the Fee Grant, the Irish Members protested against it as unfair to Ireland. In the case of the Fee Grant, when they protested against this proportion and wanted provision to be made on the basis of allowing 10s. per child, they could not get it because it was said that it would put Ireland in a worse position; but ultimately the Treasury turned round and gave them the 10s. ahead, when it was found that the 9 -80ths would put them in a better position. How could the Government attempt to justify their present action inface of their conduct in the case of the School Fee Grant? He felt bound to enter his strongest protest against the principle of the Rill.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the basis on which the Bill was framed was the basis which had been adopted since 1888. Hitherto Parliament had adhered to that basis with regard to grants from the Imperial Revenue for the purpose of local taxation. This was a Bill for the object of making such a grant, and this was the only basis which they could adopt. Whatever was the result of the consideration of the financial relations between England and Ireland in the future, they could not at present depart from the basis that had hitherto been followed.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that it would be better to bringall this money into a separate account and to leave the question over for another year, if that course could be constitutionally followed? It was unfair to press a Bill of this character upon Irish Members at this time of the Session. To agree to the Pill would be to assent to a principle they could not afterwards get rid of. It was a temporary Bill, but he objected to being

  199
  fettered by it for five years. In a thin House, in the expiring clays of the Session, without having had the opportunity of consulting together or with their constituents, Irish Members were not in a position to consider the subject. The nine-eightieths was understood to be the fixed and decided amount, and the Bill being passed would be used as a precedent. Such a Bill should remain in force only until the next Act came into operation, and the Government should give an undertaking to pass a Bill next year de novo, without reference to the temporary Bill, and meantime the amount should not be allocated.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid practically that was what he proposed. The money would not be allocated for any specific object. The period of five years was introduced because that would be the duration of the English Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what was the meaning of "shall pay to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account within the meaning of the Probate Act, 1888;" and when he turned to the Probate Act, he found that, by the third section,
  "All sums paid in respect of the Probate Duty Grant to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account shall, until otherwise provided by Parliament, be annually distributed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as follows:"
  £5,000 to the Royal Dublin Society for the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, and the balance between the road authorities and the poor-law unions.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was only to indicate what the local taxation account was to which this money was to be applied. It did not at all involve that the money should be appropriated in a particular way. It was merely carried to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account in order that, when the financial year came to an end, it might not be paid back to the Treasury. It would be necessary to bring in a Bill next Session in order to further that matter, The question raised by the hon. Member might be raised when that Bill was brought in.
  Mr. DILLONasked if the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth, and making the Bill only for one year?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if he might answer the question, he would say that he should have thought that would be an objection from the point of view of hon. Members from Ireland. As the Bill now stood it secured this grant to Ireland, for whatever Irish purpose it might be allotted to subsequently, for a period of five years. Surely that would be better than merely making it for one year.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But you have decided practically what to do with the money.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, not at all.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is absolutely nothing in this Bill which determines the money for any particular purpose whatever. It remains absolutely open. All this Bill determines is that Ireland and Ireland alone shall get it.
  MR. DILLON: We can raise the matter in Committee.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
    OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
    Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
    VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

    STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (York, W. R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
    Clause 1,—

    ABOLITION OF VICE-WARDEN'S COURT.
    (1.) On the commencement of this Act the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries shall cease to exist, except for the purpose of continuing and concluding proceedings pending in that Court at that date, and as from that date all jurisdiction and powers of the said Court and its officers shall, except as aforesaid, be transferred to and vested in such of the County Courts as the Lord Chancellor may by order direct, and be exercised subject to and in accordance with rules of Court for regulating the procedure in County Courts.
    (2.) Provision may be made by order of the Lord Chancellor—

    (a) for determining by, to or before what officer, or in what office, may be done anything required to be done by, to or before any officer, or in any office of the said Court of the Vice-Warden;

    (b) for transferring to a County Court any proceedings pending in the said Court at the commencement of this Act;

    (c) for determining the place of sitting for the exercise of any jurisdiction transferred by this Act;

    (d) with respect to the use and disposal of any property which at the commencement of this Act is held for the use of the said Court, or of any officer of the said Court, and of any room or building which at that date is appropriated for the use of the said Court, or of the Vice-Warden, officers, and suitors thereof; and

    (e) with respect to the custody of any records which at that date are under the custody of the said Court.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2,—

    PENSIONS AND REMUNKRATION.
    There shall be paid to the persons who are at the commencement of this Act the Vice-Warden and officers of the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries such pensions, and on such conditions, and out of such funds (including the funds mentioned in Section twenty-nine of the Stannaries Act, 1887, and any other funds available for the purpose), as may be fixed by the Treasury with the concurrence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, regard being had to the date and form of appointment, and salary attached thereto, and to the nature and length of the services of those persons and to the amount and nature of the funds available for their pensions.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3,—

    EXPLANATION OF REFERENCE TO STANNARIES COURT.
    References in any unrepealed enactment to mines subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries, or within the cognizance of the said Vice-Warden, shall be construed as applying to mines which would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the said Court if it had not been abolished.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4,—

    REFERENCE OF CERTAIN DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION.
    (1.) In the event of any dispute arising between—

    (a) any two or more mining companies; or

    (b) any mining company and any person having any estate or interest in the mine worked by or leased to that mining company;

    a Judge of a County Court exercising the jurisdiction of the Stannaries Court may, on the application of any party to the dispute, order that the matter in dispute be tried before himself or before an arbitrator agreed on by the parties or an officer of the court, and the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any such reference.
    (2.) For the purposes of this section the expression "mining company" shall mean any person or body of persons engaged in or formed for working mines within the Stannaries.
    MR. C. A. CRIPPSmoved, in Paragraph (b), Subsection (1), after the word "and" to

    203
    insert the words "His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall or."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ARTHUR STRAUSSmoved, at the end of Paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), to insert the words—
    "as regards the terms of a lease, or the proper execution of such terms, or as regards the renewal of such lease, or further powers required under such lease, or desirable alterations of the terms of such lease."
    The Royal Commission of 1890 examined this matter closely, and it was quite certain that the landlords themselves wished that these questions of renewing leases should be submitted to arbitration. The Report of that Commission stated that if Parliament had the opportunity of passing a Bill, they would strongly recommend it to do so. There was not the least doubt that if such a court of arbitration as he suggested were established, and the Amendment he proposed were accepted, a number of mines which were now lying idle would be set to work immediately in consequence of the decisions that would be given by the arbitrators, and hundreds of men would find employment without any delay whatever, which would tend to relieve the great distress at present prevailing in mining districts. He hoped the Committee would accept his Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALYunderstood the hon. Member obtained his seat in the House by promising the miners of Camborne that he would raise the price of tin. If he could assure the Committee that the Amendment was one which was going to fulfil his promise to raise the price of tin, then he would vote with the hon. Member.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALwould be glad to do anything he could to stimulate an industry in the hon. Member's constituency or elsewhere, but such an Amendment as this could not possibly be agreed to, except by the consent of all parties. It imposed a compulsory court of arbitration, with reference to the terms of the renewal of leases. It was not possible to accept such an Amendment without the consent of the whole House, and he was aware that a number of hon. Members objected to it.
    MR. STRAUSSobserved that as he was anxious the Bill should pass, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5,—

    REPEAL.
    The enactments described in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.
    Provided that nothing in this repeal shall affect any proceedings pending in the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries at the commencement of this Act, or any appeal from the said Court pending at that date.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6,—

    COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.
    This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7,—

    SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act, 1896.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported with Amendments; Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

    LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
    Second reading deferred till Tuesday next.
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House Adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Abensur's Naturalisation.
Aldershot Gas and Water.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.
Barry Railway.
Bishopric of Bristol Act Amendment.
Bournemouth Gas and Water.
Brighton Improvements.
Brighton Marine Palace and Pier.
Cabs (London).
Callander and Oban Railway.
Chairmen of District Councils.
Cheadle Railway, Mineral and Land Company.
Collecting Societies.
Commons Regulation (Darwen) Provisional Order.
Conciliation (Trade Disputes).
Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway.
Cornwall Minerals Railway.
Donegal Railway.
Dover Undercliff Reclamation.
Drogheda Corporation.
Dublin United Tramways.
Dundee Suburban Railway (Extension of Time).
Eastbourne Water.
Easton and Church Hope Railway (Extension of Time).
Edinburgh Extension.
Edinburgh General Register House.
Edinburgh Improvement and Tramways.
Edinburgh Street Tramways.
Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London).
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7).
Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Acton, etc.).
Finance.
Friendly Societies.
Glasgow Corporation (General Powers).
Glasgow Corporation (Sewage).
Glasgow and South-Western and North British Railway Companies.
Glasgow and South-Western Railway.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers).
Great Western Railway (South Wales and Bristol Direct Railway).
Highland Railway.
Housing of the Working Classes (Scotland).
Kensington (James Street Area) Improvements.
Kidderminster and Stourport Electric Tramway.
Kilmarnock Corporation Water.
Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway.
Liverpool Court of Passage.
Llanelly Harbour.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 11).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 16).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 20).
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 21).
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 22).
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 24).
London, Chatham and Dover Railway (Capital).
London, Chatham and Dover Railway (Further Powers).
London County Council (General Powers).
London County Council (Money).
London County Council (Vauxhall Bridge Tramways).
London Tramways.
Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway.
Manchester Ship Canal.
Marlborough and Grafton Railway.
Metropolitan Railway.
Midland Railway.
New River Company.
North Metropolitan Railway and Canal.
Ogilvie Meal Charity.
Orkney and Zetland Small Piers and Harbours.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3).
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5).
Port Talbot Railway and Docks (South Wales Mineral Railway).
Public Health.
Public Health (Ports).
Public Offices (Site).
Railway Rates and Charges (Lee-on-the-Solent Light Railway, etc.) Order Confirmation.
Realisation and Debenture Corporation of Scotland.
Redheugh Bridge.
Sheffield Corporation Water.
South Metropolitan Gas.
Strand Improvement.
Taff Vale Railway.
Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)
Vale of Glamorgan Railway.
Wallasey Urban District Council.
Water Provisional Orders.
West Highland Railway.
The Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury), the EARL OF PEMBROKE (Lord Steward), and LORD BELPER (Captain, Gentlemen-at-Arms).

Lord FitzHardinge—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Secretary for Scotland.)—[No. 239.]
PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(Tlie Earl of Ranfurly.)—[No. 240.]
JUDICIAL TRUSTEES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to
UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
To be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Prime Minister.)
RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
House again in Committee, according to Order.
[The EARL of MORLEY, CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES, in the Chair.]
Clause 8,—

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

  TURBARY AND OTHER PROFITS, EASEMENTS, AND PRIVILEGES.
  Where, on an application to fix the fair rent for a holding, it is proved to the Court that the tenant of the holding, by virtue of his tenancy, has, by the permission of the landlord, whether with or without payment, been accustomed to exercise any profit a prendre, easement, privilege of turbary, or other privilege over land belonging to the landlord, and it appears to be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the holding that he should not be deprived of what he has so exercised, and that the interests of the landlord in portions of his estate other than that in which the said profit a prendre, easement, or privilege is to he exercised will not he thereby injuriously affected, the Court may, after giving the landlord and tenant of the holding and any tenant of the land an opportunity of being heard, make an order for securing the profit a prendre, easement, or privilege to the tenant of the holding, upon such terms, as to rent or otherwise, and in such manner as the Court think just, and such order shall be binding on all estates and interests in the said land.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUSS of Lansdowne), brought up the following new clause, which the Government had agreed to substitute for Clause 8 in the Bill:—
  "8. Where, on an application to fix the fair rent for a holding, it is proved to the Court that the tenant of the holding, by virtue of his tenancy, has, by the permission of the landlord, been accustomed to exercise any privilege over land belonging to the landlord, the withholding of which privilege would diminish the value of the holding to the tenant, the landlord shall be required to elect whether he will or will not allow the tenant to exercise as of right during the statutory term, under the same restrictions and conditions as heretofore, that which he previously exercised by permission, and if the landlord consents to so allow, such exercise shall be secured to the tenant by the order fixing the fair rent, and if the landlord refuses to so allow, the fair rent shall be fixed having regard to such refusal."
  He said that last night he put the House in possession of the substance of the new clause, and of the reasons which led them to substitute it for the clause in the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he and the other Irish peers appreciated the spirit in which Lord Lansdowne had met them with regard to turbary and other easements, and in principle they accepted the new clause, but there were two verbal Amendments which they desired inserted.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid the proposed new clause met the objections advanced against the former clause, but he asked that slight Amendments which he had handed to Lord Lansdowne in the Lobby might be inserted. He suggested that words in line 6 should read "any privilege withheld which would materially diminish the value of holdings." Then in line 10, in place of the words "under the same restrictions and conditions as heretofore," he would insert "or under such conditions, not being conditions more onerous to the landlord, as the Court may think fair and reasonable." There might be cases where the former conditions would not apply in a new state of circumstances, and he would leave the settling of the conditions in that case to the Land Commission to determine what was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. He moved accordingly.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid there was no objection to inserting the word "materially" in line 6, but the other Amendment seemed to him to be superfluous, because as the clause now stood the privilege was to be exercised "under the same conditions and restrictions as heretofore." Surely the object of the words was to preserve the status quo, and it seemed to him that to import new conditions into the bargain would not tend to the amicable arrangement of these matters.
  LORD MACNACHTENsaid he would provide for new conditions "if the Court thinks them reasonable." If the Court thought the old conditions would not be workable, it would be open to it to propose new conditions. The initiative would rest entirely with the Court, and new conditions would only be proposed if the Court thought them reasonable. But if the noble Marquess thought the Amendment superfluous he would not press it.
  *THE EARL OF ERNEsaid the proposed new clause simply carried out with regard to turbary what had been the practice on the estates with which he was acquainted, and, therefore, he thought it might be accepted as a fair and reasonable settlement of this much vexed question.
  *EARL SPENCERsaid he did not object to the clause as introduced by the Government. There had been strong objections to it, and to meet them the noble Marquess had brought up the clause in a new form. He would remind the House that this legislation was not aimed at reasonable landlords, but at unreasonable landlords who could not come to reasonable terms with their tenants. With regard to the last part of the clause, it seemed to him that if the landlord was unreasonable, and refused to come to terms, the Court had no power to enforce any terms. So that if an unreasonable landlord refused to come to terms with his tenant, the latter might have a holding without any right of turbary at all.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In that case, surely, the Land Commission would value the holdings on the presumption that the right or privilege was denied. The thing is self-acting.
  *EARL SPENCER: Then it is not worth having. The tenant may not be
  8
  able to come to terms at all, and may be driven to go off the purchase altogether or find himself with a rent fixed without any powers of having turbary at all.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid the noble Lord overlooked the fact that the tenant was not tied down in a country where there was bog to any particular bog. If the Court thought the landlord's conduct unreasonable it would reduce the tenant's rent to enable the tenant to have money to pay for turf bog elsewhere.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTthought, with all deference to the legal knowledge of Lord Macnaghten, that it would be bettor to omit "materially."
  Word "materially" inserted; other Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9,—

  LETTINGS BY PERSONS NOT ABSOLUTE OWNERS.
  (1.) The Land Law Acts shall apply and he deemed to have always applied in the case of tenancies created by a limited owner, or by a mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, and the tenancies shall not he or he deemed to have been determined (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross undervalue) by the cesser of the interest or possession of such limited owner, mortgagor, or mortgagee, and the person entitled on such cesser to receive the rent of the holding shall stand in the relation of landlord to the tenant of the holding, and have the rights and be subject to the obligations of landlord accordingly. Provided that where a fine or premium was received it shall be lawful for the Court to dismiss the tenant's application if the justice of the case so requires.
  Provided also that the Land Commission, before fixing the rent for the first time in respect of a tenancy to which this section applies, shall give the prescribed notice to the said person entitled on such cesser or to some person appointed by the Land Commission to represent his interest, but the failure or neglect of the Land Commission to give such notice shall not affect the validity of the order.
  (2.) This section shall not apply to a tenancy created by a limited owner in a holding which at the date of the letting was demesne land, where the mansion-house is let with such demesne land, or the application of the Land Law Acts to the tenancy would materially diminish the value as a residence of the mansion-house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out, the words—
  "Provided that where a fine or premium was received, it shall be lawful for the Court to dismiss the tenant's application if the justice of the case so requires.
  Provided also that the Land Commission, before fixing the fair rent for the first time in respect of a tenancy to which this section applies, shall give the prescribed notice to such person entitled on such cesser or to some person appointed by the Land Commission to represent his interest, but the failure or neglect of the Land Commission to give such notice shall not affect the validity of the order."
  and to insert instead thereof, as a new sub-section, the following:—
  "Provided that where a fair rent has been fixed after the passing of this Act in the case of a tenancy to which this section applies, the person entitled on the said cesser to receive the rent of the holding may, within the prescribed time after becoming entitled to receive such rent, apply to the Court in the prescribed manner, and the Court, after giving such person and the tenant of the holding an opportunity of being heard, may proceed as follows—

  (a) if of opinion that by reason of a fine or premium having been paid the rent was reduced, or that otherwise the fair rent fixed was unreasonable, the Court may vary the fair rent; and

  (b) if of opinion that a, fair rent ought not to have been fixed, the Court shall declare that the said person and the tenant shall he in the same position as if this section had not been enacted."

  The noble Lord said that, under the present law, a tenancy created by a limited owner terminated on the cesser of the limited owner's interest. The Government thought that where the letting was bonâ fide, although made by a limited owner, the tenant's interest should survive when the interest of the limited owner ceased. But the Government recognised that it was necessary to give ample protection to the interest of reversioners, and that the reversioner or mortgagee should be protected against fraudulent lettings or against the creation of new tenancies by the owner who had no right to create them. It was thought there might be a proviso that in the case of all first applications to fix a fair rent, notice should be served upon the person entitled to succeed the limited owner on his cesser of the interest. Further consideration had convinced them that this
  10
  arrangement would be an unworkable one. In the case of an ordinary application to fix a fair rent the Court would be obliged to ascertain whether the person who made the letting was or was not a limited owner. If he was, the family solicitor would be applied to for an abstract of the title to ascertain who the person was who would be entitled to succeed when the limited owner's interest came to an end. Then in the numerous cases filed in the Land Commissioner's Court the Court would have to refuse to recognise an agreement until proof was forthcoming that the tenancy had not been created by a limited owner, or that due notice had been served upon the person entitled to such notice. In the case of fair rents fixed in county Cork all this would lead to an intolerable amount of investigation and trouble. The Government proposed as a better plan that they should give up the idea of serving a notice upon the reversioner, but that, whenever he came to succeed to the estate, he should then be able to object to a tenancy created by his predecessor, either upon the ground that the tenancy was created in a fraudulent manner—say, in consideration of the payment of a fine—or that it was created by a person who had no right to create it. In a case of that kind, if the Court were satisfied that the tenancy was created in a fraudulent manner and the rent was an improper rent, it would be open under this clause to the Court to revise the rent. If, on the other hand, the Court was of opinion that the tenancy was created by some one who had no right to create it, then the fair rent could be quashed altogether, leaving the parties in the position which they occupied before the fair rent was fixed. The Government believed that would be a much more reasonable mode of procedure than that which was adopted when the Bill was in the House of Commons, and with that object he moved the Amendment.
  LORD MACNAGHTENthought the Amendment was undoubtedly a very great improvement on the clause as it stood, and he did not think there would be any objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "holding," to insert the words "the substantial part of."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MACNAGHTENhad the next Amendment on the Paper, to leave out from the word "voidable" to the end of the clause. The noble Lord said he had considered the matter since the previous night, and he thought the clause did substantially meet the objection he raised to a former clause. He should, however, like the noble Marquess to consider the last line but one, which contained the expression that the tenancy would materially "diminish the value as a residence of the mansion-house situate on and theretofore occupied with the demesne." He did not quite understand what was meant by the word value. Did it mean pecuniary value? He did not think it was intended to mean that, and he would suggest that the expression "diminish the value as a residence" should be left out, and that the clause should run, "would materially interfere with the enjoyment of the mansion."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDthought the words "value as a residence" were wide and useful terms which would cover all cases that it was designed to cover. He would, however, before the Report stage, consider the suggestion of his noble Friend.
  Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10,—

  TENANCY NOT INVALIDATED BY REASON OF SUB-LETTING BY LANDLORD.
  A contract of tenancy entered into, whether before or after the commencement of this Act by a landlord in violation, either of the Act of the seventh year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter twenty-nine, intituled "An Act to amend the law of Ireland respecting the assignment and subletting of lands and tenements," or of an agreement against sub-letting in his lease, shall not as between him and the tenant holding under such contract be, or be deemed to have been, void or voidable, and a superior landlord shall be deemed to have expressed a sufficient consent, in the manner in which the consent is required by law to be expressed to a sub-letting made in violation of
  12
  such Act or agreement, unless within a reasonable time after the sub-letting came to the knowledge of himself, or his agent, he served on the lessee or sub-tenant notice of his dissent from the sub-letting, or instituted a proceeding against the lessee founded upon the said violation.
  *LORD CLONBROCKmoved to leave out from the word "voidable" to the end of the clause. The noble Lord observed that the description of the clause was rather misleading, inasmuch as it was not directed against the action of the landlord but of the middleman—and what was more, a fraudulent middleman; of a man who, having illegally sub-let his land, and finding sub-letting inconvenient, either as a bar to going into the Land Court or other purposes, suddenly turned round and said to his tenant, "My sub-letting is illegal, and, therefore, void, and you must give up possession." With the first part of the clause down to the word "voidable" he had not the slightest objection; but the second part of the clause to which the Amendment was directed proceeded to exonerate the middleman from the consequences of his illegal act. It provided that the landlord should be deemed to have expressed sufficient consent to the sub-letting in the manner in which consent was required by law (that was in writing), unless, within reasonable time after his knowledge of the sub-letting, he served on the lessee or sub-tenant notice of objection to the sub-letting, or instituted proceedings against the lessee. It was said that silence gave consent, but in this case silence was to be assumed to have given a written consent, which appeared to be somewhat racy of the soil over which the Act would extend. Look at the position in which the landlord was placed. It was said he ought to have taken proceedings, or to have expressed his dissent. The subletting might have taken place long before the matter came to his knowledge, and the only way in which he could proceed would be by eviction, a process never resorted to except in case of extreme necessity, as it exposed the landlord to great opprobrium. He would be called a tyrant, an oppressor, or perhaps a murderer, for Mr. Gladstone's definition of an eviction notice as a "sentence of death" had never been forgotten in Ireland. It was said he might serve notice

  13
  of dissent, but he would naturally think it was no use to bark if he did not intend to bite, and that serving a notice without taking proceedings would be only a confession of weakness. The Amendment was not directed so much to preserving the interest of the landlord as against the practice of sub-letting which had been a fruitful cause of evil in Ireland and which ought to be severely discouraged. In this case the tenant who illegally sub-let was protected from the consequences and his illegal act was legalised. There could be nothing worse than to legalise an unlawful act or to give the tenant or any other person to understand he was not bound by the conditions of any agreement he had made. Another reason against sub-letting in a case like this was that it would be an obstacle to purchase as the Land Commission would not advance money on any land in the occupation of more than one person. The middleman who had sub-let ought not to be a particular object of sympathy. In the first place he had broken the law and in the next he had probably imposed upon his unfortunate sub-tenant a rent very much in excess of that which he himself paid to the superior landlord. He had known cases when the middleman had charged three times as much rent as he was paying himself. He hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that what the Government proposed under this clause seemed to him a very fair thing. They provided that, if the middleman had deliberately let the land to a sub-tenant, he should not after tolerating the presence of the sub-tenant for a number of years, suddenly turn round and object to his presence. That was the effect; of the earlier portion of the clause, to which he thought the noble Lord did not object. Then they came, not to the middleman, but to the head landlord. If the head landlord, in a case of that kind, after having also acquiesced for an indefinite time in the presence of the sub-tenant on the land, suddenly turned round and objected to him, it was quite clear there was no use in telling the sub-tenant that he was to be protected against the middleman. If they wished to protect the sub-tenant at all in a case of this kind they must protect him, not only against
  14
  the middleman, but against the head landlord. That was the object of the clause, and in the latter portion of it it was provided that the sub-letting should be valid, unless within a reasonable time after the sub-letting came to the knowledge of the landlord or his agent he served on the lessee or sub-tenant a notice of dissent. Of course those words would entirely protect a landlord who was absent from the country and who had no means of knowing what was going on in his absence. The only case in which the head landlord would be obliged to recognise the presence of a sub-tenant, would be the case in which he had knowingly and deliberately acquiesced in his presence, and it seemed to him that in a case of that kind the sub-letting should be good in the eyes of the law.
  LORD MACNAGHTENasked how on earth was the head landlord to know that his tenant had sub-let?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES of HEREFORD)said if he did not know then he did not come within the clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It must be brought to his knowledge.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he had no right to go on the land or to send anybody on the land to ascertain whether there had been sub-letting. It seemed to him the reasonable course would be to impose the obligation on the person who had deliberately violated his covenant of sending notice to the head landlord, and upon that, if the head landlord took no action, it would be very reasonable to assume that he recognised the sub-letting.
  LORD CASTLETOWNasked whether his noble Friend in charge of the Bill had gone into this question as regarded sales? Perhaps he was not aware that in the event of a sale to an immediate tenant, if there was a sub-tenant, the Land Commissioners would refuse, as a rule, to carry out the sale. Under this clause, as far as he understood it, the superior landlord had very little means of knowing whether the middleman had sub-let or not. If the middleman had sub-let, and the superior landlord desired to make a sale, the Land Commissioners would refuse to carry it out.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid the case put by his noble and learned Friend would appear to be quite protected. If the sub-letting was not brought to the knowledge of the head landlord he was not within the section. As to the ignorance of the landlord, he would very likely be happy in his ignorance, because he would be protected in the application of the clause. He was not aware exactly of the point stated by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Castletown). He would say that the section did not apply, but he would consider it. He would like to say, with reference to the general criticism, that this clause had been in the Bill for weeks and months. The matter was before the House of Commons over and over again, and he really did not think that there was any criticism or challenge there in reference to that part of the clause. That did not in the least preclude examination or criticism by their Lordships, and he only mentioned it to show that the clause had run the gauntlet of considerable time and experience in the House of Commons, and that no objection was taken to the reasonableness and fairness of it.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Surely we are entitled to consider it in this House.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My noble Friend said so.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Then what was the meaning of the interruption, if it did not mean that we were not to consider it or not to consider it fully? But the noble and learned Lord had entirety missed his point. As long, no doubt, as the head landlord was in ignorance he was protected; but it might come to his knowledge many years after, and then it would be very unfair for the sub-tenants to be turned out.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREhoped the noble and learned Lord would look very carefully into the point raised by Lord Castletown, because he was informed by a noble Friend who had sold a great deal of land that he had no less than 30 or 40 cases in which the Land Commissioners either refused altogether or delayed for a very long time to carry out the sales, because they found sub-tenants.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid his objection was that the clause legalised an illegal act. He thought it was a very
  16
  dangerous thing, more especially in Ireland, after a man had sub-let illegally, that he should get off scot-free by the provisions of this clause.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The clause legalises an act which has been condoned by the persons interested.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid there had been cases of this kind—he was not perfectly clear whether there had been cases where the intermediate interest had lapsed and the superior landlord had come in as owner—in which the Land Commission had refused the sales because sub-letting existed on the holding, although that sub-letting was created with the knowledge of the superior landlord at the time.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid the whole purchase code in Ire-land was intended for the benefit and advantage of the occupying tenants, and the Land Commission, necessarily, in the discharge of its duty, had to consider whether the applicant for purchase fulfilled the conditions all through; and they were bound to carry out the Act of Parliament.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid that was exactly why he said the clause, militated against purchase, which, as he understood, was the object of the Government. In any case the point ought to be cleared up.
  LORD MONTEAGLEasked the noble Marquess whether he would put in the word "immediate" before "landlord" at the beginning of the clause, to make the point clear. He presumed, too, that the word "lessee" in the seventh line on page 8 should be "immediate landlord."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the drafting had been carefully considered, but if the noble Lord would bring the matter up at a future stage he would consider it.
  LORD MONTEAGLEunderstood the main objection of the noble Lord opposite was to the legalising of an illegal act, but he did not see in what way it would help if this part of the clause was omitted, unless the landlord was prepared to evict, which was just what he understood the noble Lord was unwilling to do. In the same point of view it appeared to him that the objection raised by his noble Friend below him would

  17
  also depend upon whether the landlord was prepared to evict.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 11,—

  DETERMINATION OF ESTATE OF IMMEDIATE LANDLORD.
  (1.) Where a superior landlord recovers against an immediate landlord a judgment in ejectment for non-payment of the rent of a holding, or of lands including a holding, the estate of the immediate landlord shall be deemed to be determined within the meaning of Section fifteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, without prejudice to his right to redeem his interest, as if a decree to possession or a writ of habere facias possessionem had been executed.
  (2.) Unless the Court before which the ejectment was brought certifies that the non-payment was due to the non-payment of rent by the tenant of the holding, such judgment shall not be executed against the tenant, and the tenancy of the holding shall not be affected, except that the superior landlord shall stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant, and may proceed accordingly for the recovery of all rent due from the tenant to the immediate landlord, as if it had always been due to the superior landlord, but (except in the case of fraud or collusion or a letting at a gross under value) not for the recovery of the rent due to the superior from the immediate landlord. If the amount recovered by the superior landlord from the tenant equals or exceeds the amount due to him from the immediate landlord, the interest of the immediate landlord shall not be deemed to have been redeemed, but the superior landlord shall pay the excess to the immediate landlord, after deducting any amount due for costs.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in Sub section (1), to leave out the words "to possession or a writ of habere facias possessionem," and to insert the words "for possession or a writ of possession."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the question "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill,"
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRYsaid that on the Second Heading of the Bill, he expressed the opinion that this clause ought never to have been admitted into the Bill, and informed their Lordships that he should move its omission in Committee. At that time he asked his noble, and learned Friend
  18
  on what grounds the clause had been admitted into the Bill, but the noble and learned Lord entirely disregarded that question, and took no notice whatever of it. He trusted he would remedy that defect when he spoke on this clause, and would explain why this clause, which was identically the same as that which stood in Mr. Morley's Bill last year, found its way into the Bill of the Unionist Government. That clause was denounced by the late Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Carson) as a revolutionary proposal, with, he believed, the full sanction of his right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House of Commons. Consequently, he asked his noble and learned Friend to explain why a clause which was revolutionary in Mr. Morley's Bill had found its way into the Bill of the Unionist Government? The refusing of the power of ejectment to a landlord was the taking away of one of his chief rights and powers. It might be said that he had the power of what was known as personal judgment, but anyone who was acquainted with Ireland would know full well that in the disturbed districts the right of personal judgment was absolutely useless. Consequently, he maintained that if they took away from the landlord the right of ejectment they at once struck a blow at that right of contract which he had made with his tenant and which he was prepared to carry out in exactly the same way as the tenant should be forced to carry it out. This clause proposed that, where there were sub-tenants, if the landlord had got a decree it should not be of any use so that he might obtain his land as against the sub-tenants. He thought such an occasion as he was about to bring to their Lordships' notice might hardly ever arise, but they had had experience of what Irish tenants could do in bad times. They had had experience of the Plan of Campaign, and although he hoped such a disgraceful, illegal and immoral conspiracy would never arise again, still they would indeed be foolish if they were not to consider that it might take place again. What would be the position of a landlord in those districts where the Plan of Campaign held its sway if this clause were carried? The landlord had a tenant who had sub-let part of his farm to two other sub-tenants. The middleman, or superior tenant, had drawn his

  19
  rent from the two sub-tenants, and, together with his own rent, had placed them in the war chest of the Plan of Campaign. Naturally, the landlord asked the superior tenant for his rent, and it was refused to him. He then got a notice of ejectment, and he did eject the superior tenant, but he had received no rent from him or from the two subtenants for the simple reason that the money had been paid into the war-chest. So he got no rent whatever for one year. What, then, was his position? The sub-tenants took the same line that the superior tenant did, and when the year was passed they refused to pay him rent, although they might have sub-let their land to two or three other sub-tenants. The long and the short of this might be that the landlord might for two or three years find himself with no rent from the superior tenant, but with a parcel of sub-tenants to whom the land had been sub-let, and who, whenever occasion occurred, might sub-let to other men brought in for the purpose from round the corner. It might be said that sub-tenants could not be made at a moment's notice, but he was informed they could be so made. If the noble Marquess told him that no subtenant could be made after the notice of ejectment had been given he would be satisfied. He did not wish to divide on the question, but he feared that unless he received a satisfactory answer he should be obliged to go to a Division.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas not sure the noble Marquess exactly understood the effect of the clause. This was another case where they had to deal with three parties, the sub-tenants, the middleman, and the head landlord. Under the present law, if the head landlord terminated the tenancy of the middleman by ejectment for non-payment of rent, he might clear the premises of the sub-tenants even if the sub-tenants had committed no default whatever. The Government proposed that if sub-tenants were not in default they should be held harmless, and the clause enacted that when the tenancy of the middleman had been terminated by the head landlord by ejectment for non-payment of rent two things should happen—first, the subtenants should become the direct tenants of the head landlord, and, secondly, if the sub-tenants had paid in full to the
  20
  middleman the rent due by them to him, the head landlord should not be empowered to require from them a further payment on account of the same period of their occupation. Was that an unfair thing? Who were the sub-tenants? They were men who had a legal estate in the land so long as they paid their rent punctually to the middleman. They could go to Court and get a fair rent fixed against the middleman, and the head landlord was already saddled with the sub-tenants if the middleman's lease expired by effluxion of time or was surrendered. Why, because the middleman's tenure was terminated by ejectment for non-payment of rent, should the sub-tenants be differently treated? He could see no adequate reason for arriving at such a conclusion. The noble Marquess suggested that a tenant who wished to thwart or annoy his landlord might cover the holding with contraband sub-tenants, and that the head landlord, when the middleman had disappeared, would find himself saddled with such sub-tenants. He did not think that would happen. Sub-tenancies created in that way would be illegal sub-tenancies. The landlord could in a case of that kind clear the premises by the ordinary operation of the law. If the noble Marquess would consult the early Land Acts he would find that sub-lettings of that kind were fully provided for. His impression was that in the case of a tenancy from year to year sub-letting was void under the Act of 1881; that in the case of a lease with a contract against sub-letting, sub-letting would be void under the contract; and, again, that in the case of a tenant holding under a statutory term sub-letting would be void because it would be a breach of the statutory conditions. He could not help believing that the danger which the noble Marquess imagined was not one which really arose under this clause, and that the only subtenants who would be protected under the clause were sub-tenants who had a legal estate in the land, and whom it was, for a great many reasons, most desirable they should protect.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYdid not gather that the noble Marquess had answered his question whether an unfortunate landlord might not find himself without his rent, without his land,

  21
  and without the power of ejecting the subtenants. He understood his noble Friend to contend that sub-tenants had a perfect right to remain in the holdings so long as they had paid their rent to the middleman, no matter whether the rent had gone into the war chest of the Plan of Campaign or not. He trusted they would receive a more explicit reply as to the exact position of the landlord with regard to sub-tenants. He desired particularly to know whether it would be possible for new tenants to be made sub-tenants after a notice of ejectment had been served.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that by the 15th section of the Land Act of 1881, it was provided that on the determination of the middleman's interest the sitting sub-tenants should not be obliged to lose their holdings. The Act of 1887 dealt with a further class of middlemen; it provided for the case of middlemen who might desire to surrender their interest. It was then thought unreasonable that in consequence of the voluntary act of the middleman in surrendering his holding sub-tenants who had done no wrong should suffer. It was obvious to any legal mind that that left uncovered what was sought to be met in this section—that was the case of a middleman whose interest did not determine in the ordinary way, who had not ended his interest by surrender, but whose interest was determined, in spite of himself, by ejectment, and it was thought that it would be unreasonable not to apply to the occupying tenants in such a case the same consideration that was dealt out to the occupying tenants by the Acts of 1881 and 1887. His noble Friend had referred to the Plan of Campaign and the war chest, familiar and painful and serious topics in Ireland at one time, but which, he was glad to say, had no prominence or existence at present. It might be a hardship to the landlord if a lot of bogus subtenants, called in for the occasion from round the corner, as the noble Marquess said, were found living on the middleman's farm; but he did not think it would be possible under this Bill for such a state of things to arise. Three hundred thousand out of 500,000 tenants had had fair rents fixed and they were absolutely out of the possibility of the objection of his noble Friend, because their statutory conditions forbade them
  22
  to have sub-tenants. There was another class of tenants who were equally outside. There was the numerous class of middlemen who were forbidden by their leases to have any sub-letting at all. Then as to other cases, he referred the noble Lord to the drafting of the clause, which provided that fraud and collusion and matters of that kind were all to be taken into account, so that bogus tenants would be hit by the structure of the clause. He trusted that their Lordships would be satisfied that the clause had been carefully considered, and that it met any real grievance.
  LORD INCHIQUINpointed out that great delay would arise in the ordinary course before a landlord could recover his land and before the judgment could be completed.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid that the noble and learned Lord had told them that there were few cases. Why then encumber the Bill with the clause? To put the law in force would be extremely costly.
  *LORD ARDILAUNhoped the noble Marquess would not press this Amendment to a Division. He had a case exactly in point where an Irish Member of Parliament declined to pay his rent, and he, as trustee, took proceedings against him. Then the sub-tenants came to him and complained that they would be evicted in consequence of the act of this Member of Parliament, and they asked that their case should be considered. He at once decided that they should not be evicted. Subsequently the Member of Parliament paid his rent at the point of the bayonet. [Laughter.] He thought it would have been a hard thing to have evicted these sub-tenants. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid as far as he gathered from the noble and learned Lord, sub-letting under this clause would be absolutely illegal and he, therefore, withdrew the Amendment. At the same time, the noble and learned Lord had not explained why a proposal which, when introduced by Mr. Morley, he had denounced as revolutionary, was introduced by a Unionist Government. [Laughter.]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 12,—

  TENURE IN SEVERALTY.
  Where the estate of the immediate landlord for the time being is determined during the continuance of any tenancy from year to year, and two or more persons are entitled in severalty as superior landlords, each of such persons shall be deemed to be the immediate landlord to the tenant of the tenancy within the meaning of Section 15 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, in respect of the portion of the land to which he is entitled, and to have the rights and to be subject to the obligations of an immediate landlord as provided by said section; and the Land Commission may, on application being made to them by any person interested other than the tenant, apportion the rent previously paid by the tenant between the different persons thenceforward entitled to the landlord's interest according to the value of the land held from each; and the tenancy shall thereupon be divided into two or more tenancies according to the portions of land to which each of such landlords is entitled: Provided that each of such tenancies shall continue to be subject to the same conditions in all respects (save as regards the amount of rent to be paid) as the previously existing tenancy was subject to under the immediate landlord prior to the determination of his estate.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 13,—

  AMENDMENT OF 54 & 55 VICT. C. 57. AS TO LONG LEASES AND FEE FARM GRANTS.
  The Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891, shall be amended as follows:—

  (a) The provisions of the Land Law Acts and this Act with respect to improvements shall apply, notwithstanding that the lessee or grantee would not, on quitting his holding, be entitled by reason of his being such lessee or grantee to claim compensation for improvements under the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.

  (b) A person shall be a lessee or a grantee under a fee farm grant within the meaning of the said Acts notwithstanding that the instrument under which he holds though purporting to create the relation of landlord and tenant, is dated before the first day of January one thousand eight, hundred and sixty-one, and by reason of its date does not create the relation of landlord and tenant between him and the person to whom money is payable thereunder in respect of the holding, and that person shall be a lessor or grantor in like manner as if the instrument were executed on or after the above-mentioned day.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 14,—

  AMENDMENT OF 50 & 51 VICT. C. 33. S. 1, AS TO TIME FOR APPLICATIONS BY LEASEHOLDERS.
  Applications under Section one of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, may be made at any time.

  EJECTMENTS FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT IN CASE OF HOLDINGS UNDER LAND LAW ACTS 23 & 24 VICTORIA, C. 154.
  In the case of any ejectment which shall he or has been brought for the non-payment of the rent of a holding to which the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act apply, where the rent in arrear exceeds two years' rent, the tenant may pay, tender, deposit, or lodge under Sections 60 to 71 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland) 1860, the sum of two years' rent instead of the sums therein respectively required to be paid, tendered, deposited, or lodged, and upon such tender, payment, deposit, or lodgment the tenant shall be in the same position under those sections as if two years' rent were the sum due for rent up to the gale day preceding such tender, payment, deposit, or lodgment; and the balance of the rent then due shall not be recovered by ejectment for non-payment of rent or distress.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved, after the words "any ejectment which," to insert the words "after the expiration of two years from the date of the passing of this Act." He did not think it would he a hardship to the tenant that the operation of the clause should be suspended for two years.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked whether this Amendment was a desirable one? It would not come into operation until two years after the passing of the Act. The effect might be to induce a number of landlords to exact from their tenants large payments of arrears exceeding the allowance of two years laid down in the clause. That would be an unfortunate state of things to bring about. A similar Amendment was introduced in the House of Commons by a highly-respected Irish landlord, Mr. Smith-Barry, and it was not pressed.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid it was in the Bill of the late Government. It was only suggested in order to give time for the landlord and tenant to come to some arrangement. He approved of the principle of the clause, but thought it rather sudden to bring it into operation at once.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved to insert after the words "two years' rent," the words "together with the costs or the undertakings in respect thereof by the said Act required." He thought that the words must have been left out by some inadvertence. Surely they did not intend to deprive the landlord of his costs?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas told that the Amendment was not necessary, and that the clause did not touch the question at all.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIdid not see how the costs were provided for.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid as the clause stood, it was clear that the costs would not be recoverable. [Cheers.] Why not make it clear by putting the words in the Bill? ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDpromised to consider the matter before Report.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIurged that the words should be inserted now—["hear, hear!"]—and then they could consider the words on Report.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid he must oppose that. It was abundantly clear that the clause did not touch the matter.
  LORD MACNAGHTENasked how were the costs to be recovered. Did the noble and learned Lord intend that the landlord should bring a separate action for the costs? ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDrepeated that the question of costs was not interfered with by the clause.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he understood the noble and learned Lord would arrange some form of words by which the landlord could recover costs.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid it was not intended to touch the question of costs, and they would take care to see that the clause was so worded as to make the point abundantly clear. ["Hear, hear."]
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHmoved, after the words "the sum of two years' rent," to insert the words,
  "or in any case in which the tenant has been allowed the benefit of the usage known as the hanging gale the sum of two years rent in addition to the account of the hanging gale or gales of rent."
  26
  There was a hanging gale on a great number of estates, and it would create a great hardship to tenants and landlords if what had become a custom—and was looked upon as a custom by the tenants—was suddenly called up on the part of the landlords. He hoped his noble Friend would consider the point, and, if he did not approve the exact words of the Amendment, that he would on Report give effect to the principle of the Amendment.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he was afraid the words proposed would not do. He believed their effect would be to oblige the tenant to pay, not two years as at present but three years. The point was an extremely intricate one. He would like to consider the words, and attempt to devise something which would meet the case. He did not at all desire to disturb the custom on an estate where that custom had been that the rent was paid a certain number of months in arrear.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid it did not exactly follow that the person succeeding to an estate was entitled to a hanging gale.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved to leave out the words "such tender, payment, deposit, or lodgment," and to insert the words "the issue of the writ or process of ejectment." The object of the Amendment was that the landlord should not be the loser of any rent that might accrue after the proceedings had been taken.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the exact meaning of his noble Friend's Amendment was not quite obvious. Perhaps this was one of those points which they might consider later.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid it was to provide that the rent that went on accruing should not be lost.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved to leave out the words "then due," and to insert instead thereof the words "due to such gale day shall be recoverable by the landlord as if the same were a debt due to him by the occupying tenant." His object was to restore the words which appeared in the original draft of the Bill. It very often happened that there were cases between landlord and tenant where there was no privity of contract, and there would be nothing to prove that this was a debt. The Amendment practically provided a declaration by the Court that this balance of rent was a debt due by the tenant to the landlord and recoverable.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Government had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved to add at the end of the clause the following words:—
  "Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to any proceeding in ejectment in which an Order has been or shall be made under the 30th Section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, nor to any arrears of rent the subject of any such Order."
  The object of the Amendment was to provide that this Order of the Court under the Act of 1887 should not be invalidated in any way by proceedings under this section.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Government had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 16,—

  PROVISION FOR AGREEMENTS BY LANDLORDS AND TENANTS IN CERTAIN CASES.
  (1.) The landlord and tenant of any holding may at any time (whether a statutory term is current in respect of the holding or not) agree in the prescribed manner in regard to all or any of the matters following:—

  (a) the consolidation of the holding with any other holding or portion of a holding or the making of any addition to the holding;

  28

  (b) the partition or division of the holding;

  (c) the assignment or surrender of portion of the holding;

  (d) the creation of a present tenancy in any holding;

  (e) the abridgment of any statutory term in the holding; and

  (f) the fair rent of the holding and the date at which the statutory term is to commence and the duration thereof.

  (2.) Where any such agreement is made, the tenancy in the holding shall (in the absence of a provision to the contrary) as and from the date of the agreement be a present tenancy.
  (3.) Any such agreement on being filed in the prescribed manner with the Land Commission shall have the same effect and consequences in all respects as if the matters agreed to therein had boon determined by the Land Commission, and the Land Commission had power to determine the same.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in sub-section (1), after the word "manner," to insert the words "and subject to the prescribed rules and conditions."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in sub-section (2), after the weird "provision," to insert the words "in the agreement."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to add to the clause the following sub-section:—
  "(4) The said conditions shall, in the case of an agreement made by a limited owner or a mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, include such conditions as may seem necessary to protect the interests of the person entitled on the cesser of the interest or possession of such limited owner, mortgagor, or mortgagee."
  The sub-section was necessary for the protection of the interests of the person entitled on the cesser of the interest.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 17,—

  TENANCY TO BE PRESENT TENANCY WHERE LANDLORD HAS SO CONSENTED.
  Where, prior to the commencement of this Act, the landlord of a holding has consented that

  29
  the tenancy in the holding should be a present tenancy, or that the tenant should have the same rights as a present tenant, the tenancy shall be deemed to be a present tenancy accordingly.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 18,—

  AMENDMENT AS TO MORTGAGE OR SETTLEMENT OF HOLDINGS.
  The alienation to one person only of a holding by way of mortgage, or family settlement, or where marriage forms a portion of the consideration, or otherwise than for consideration in money or money's worth, shall be subject to the provisions of Sub-section six of Section one of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, but shall not in other respects be deemed a sale within the meaning of that section.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 19,—

  REPEAL OF 44 & 45 VICT. C. 49, s. 8, s.s. 5.
  The fifth Sub-section of Section eight of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, is hereby repealed.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved to omit Clause 19. The section of the Act of 1881 was a very valuable one, as it called upon the Court, on the application of the landlord or tenant, or both, to fix a specified value at the time when a fair rent was fixed. This clause was clearly a deprivation of the right and privilege of the landlord, and he thought it was to the public interest that the section should be kept in the law, as it might have some effect in controlling and reducing the very excessive prices that were now given for tenant-right.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid they were under the impression that the section of the Act of 1881 was not really a valuable section. He was advised that it had very rarely indeed been taken advantage of, and that the Commissioners generally declined to fix a specified value, on the grounds that they had not the materials for doing so with accuracy, and that to fix a specified value in anticipation of a sale which might never after all take place was really a superfluous proceeding. The repeal of this section did not deprive the landlord
  30
  in any way of his right of pre-emption when the tenancy was sold. He hoped, therefore, the noble lord would not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid it was quite true that at the beginning of the operation of the Act of 1881 the Sub-Commissioners declined in a great many cases to exercise their power on the score that evidence could not be adduced as to the value of tenant-right, which, up to that time, except where the Ulster custom prevailed, had not been touched at all. There had been so many cases of sale in the south of Ireland now, however, that it would be easy to fix a specified value. No injustice would be incurred by the tenant.
  LORD CLARINAsaid that, so far from this being a valueless provision, he had always required the Land Commissioners to value the tenant-right at the time they fixed a fair rent, and he had purchased the tenant-right at that valuation in order to prevent cattle disease from being introduced into his grazing-land. He trusted that the noble Lord would divide the House upon his Amendment.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE)said that, although he thought that the principle of the clause was a right one, he had been informed by those who were better acquainted with such matters than himself that it had but a very limited operation; and, therefore, he did not think that it was worth while to retain it in the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 20,—

PROCEDURE.

  AMENDMENTS OF PROCEDURE AS TO LIMITED REPRESENTATION OF DECEASED PERSON.
  On any application under the Land Law Acts, as amended by this Act, an order may be made by the Court, appointing some person limited administrator of a deceased person for the purpose of such application, and such order may be made whether such deceased person did or did not die before the application, or make a will which was not proved. It is hereby declared that the Court had power, at any time

  31
  since the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to make such an Order as in this section is mentioned.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 21,—

  GROUND OF APPEAL TO BE STATED.
  Rules under Section 50 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, may provide that, subject to the qualifications (if any) contained in those rules, every notice of appeal under the Land Law Acts shall state the grounds of appeal, and on the hearing of the appeal no grounds of appeal shall, save by leave of the Court, which shall he granted only on special grounds, be entered into except those so stated. For the purpose of this section, "appeal" includes "re-hearing."
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid that this clause was added to the Bill, on the Motion of Mr. Maurice Healy, about four o'clock in the morning of Friday, 24th July, without any discussion. Its effect would be to compel the appellant, in all appeals and re-hearings, to state all the grounds upon which he appeals, and to prevent him from raising any other grounds or points during the hearing of the case. The Select Committee of 1894 (Report, page xv.) referred to the fact that a tenant whose valuation is over £10 must set out on his originating notice particulars of the improvements which he intends to claim, and they contended that the landlord should be placed under what they called a "corresponding obligation" to give notice of any point of law which he intended to raise at the hearing, and that "a similar rule should apply to hearings in the Appeal Court." They apparently meant (though their language is not explicit on the point), that this latter recommendation should apply both to "re-hearings" before the Chief Land Commission, and to "appeals" (properly so-called) to the High Court of Appeal. Mr. W. F. Bailey was first asked whether it would not improve the working of the Land Acts,
  "if the landlord was compelled to give notice to the tenant on receiving the tenant's originating notice of any law points that he intended to raise as to his status."
  He replied in these significant terms:—
  "Of course, it would he an advantage in enabling the parties to see at once what were the
  32
  questions they would have to meet at the hearing, but, at the same time, I can see certain inconveniences that might result; for very frequently it is during the progress of the evidence that very important law points appear, and, of course, if you had such a rule, probably the result would be that these points could not be raised at the hearing below, and that would lead to an appeal, and they would be raised on the hearing above."
  On the following day Mr. Bailey was further questioned on this subject, and replied in these terms:—
  "What I said was that very many important law points often arise during the progress of the hearing of the case, and are points of which notice could hardly be given; they arise on the evidence that is given in Court."
  In further questions put to him, and his replies to them, he admitted that some points are usually known beforehand to the appellant, and he apparently conceded that notice of such points might be required. There would, perhaps, be a good deal to be said for this latter proposal. It would be a mutual convenience, and tend to lessen expense, and settle appeals out of Court. But Clause 14 as now added to the Bill will have the opposite effect in every way. It will compel an appellant in every case to get his notice of appeal settled by counsel (an expense which he need not now incur); and even then he would frequently find himself deprived of the benefit of important points and evidence, which were only brought to his knowledge during the hearing of the case. He begged to move to strike out the words, "and on the hearing of the appeal no grounds of appeal shall, save by leave of the Court, which shall be granted only on special grounds, be entered into except those so stated."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that he was willing to accept the Amendment as far as striking out the words "which shall be granted only on special grounds" was concerned.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Words, "which shall be granted only on special grounds," struck out.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PART II.
  Clause 22,—

  LAND COMMISSION AND LAND JUDGE—REGULATIONS AS TO INTERCHANGE OF DUTIES OF THE LAND JUDGE AND THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  (1.) The Lord Chancellor, the Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, or any two of them (of whom the Lord Chancellor shall be one) may make rules for the following purposes, namely:—
  (a.) To enable the Land Judge to act as an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission—

  (i) in any matter arising under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act; or

  (ii) in any appeal or rehearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act;

  (b.) To enable the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission to exercise any jurisdiction, powers, and duties, so far as existing at the commencement of this Act,

  (i.) of the High Court or any Judge thereof, either as successors of the Landed Estates Court and the Judges thereof, or under the Record of Title (Ireland) Act, 1895, or the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891; and

  (ii) of the Land Judge and of the Receiver Judge under any enactment conferring any jurisdiction upon either of such Judges as such;

  (c.) To enable the High Court to distribute the proceeds of any sale under the Land Purchase Acts, and to enable the Land Commission to carry into effect any sale under those Acts ordered by the High Court.
  (2.) For carrying into effect any such rules, and exercising the jurisdiction, powers, and duties arising thereunder, the Land Judge shall be deemed to be an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, and the Judicial Commissioner shall be deemed to be an additional Land Judge.
  (3.) The Land Judge as respects officers of the Supreme Court who are attached to such Judge, or otherwise employed in or about the execution of any such jurisdiction, powers and duties as may under this section be exercised by the Judicial Commissioner, and the Judicial Commissioner, so far as respects the officers of the Land Commission, may direct those officers to perform such duties as he thinks fit under the Land Commission or under the Land Judge, as the case may be, and those officers shall perform those duties.
  (4.) The Land Judge and the Judicial Land Commissioner may also make regulations for carrying into effect any rules made in pursuance
  34
  of this section, and for the mutual relations between the Land Judge and the officers of the Supreme Court on the one side, and the Land Commission and their officers on the other, and in particular for the payment into the High Court of money to be distributed among the parties entitled thereto, and for the Land Commission carrying into effect any sales under the Land Purchase Acts ordered by the High Court.
  (5.) Sub-sections two and three of Section fifty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall apply to rules made under this section.
  (6.) The first rules under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act.
  (7.) Such rules shall provide that the Court of the Land Commission in Dublin shall, when hearing appeals or rehearing cases, or hearing such other matters as may be prescribed, be hold at the Four Courts, Dublin.
  Clause 23,—

  POWER TO NOMINATE JUDGE TO ACT AS ADDITIONAL LAND JUDGE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
  The Lord Chancellor may nominate any judge of the High Court with his consent to act for the time specified by the Lord Chancellor as an additional Land Judge for the purposes of the Record of Title (Ireland) Act, 1865, and the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the judge so nominated shall have during that time the jurisdiction of the Land Judge for those purposes.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved to substitute the following new clause in place of Clauses 22 and 23:—
  "(1.) A new Court shall be formed under the title of 'Land and Record of Title Court.'
  "(2.) The office of Judicial Commissioner shall be abolished.
  "(3.) The office of Lay Commissioner shall be abolished as vacancies arise.
  "(4.) The present Land Judge, the present Judicial Commissioner, and a third Judge to be appointed or transferred from a division of the High Court shall be Members of the 'Land and Record of the Title Court.'
  "(5.) They shall be members of the High Court.
  "(6.) Subject to the sanction of the Treasury, laymen may be appointed as 'valuers' or 'assessors' to the Land and Record of Title Court, and to such divisions as may be decided.
  "(7.) All duties, powers, and jurisdiction of the Land Judges Court, of the Land Commission, and under the 'Record of Title Act and Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act,' shall be vested in the 'Land and Record of Title Court.'

  35
  "(8). The Lord Chancellor, the Judges of the 'Land and Record of Title Court,' and the Lay Commissioners, for so long as they shall hold office, shall have complete control over the dispatch and distribution of business in the respective divisions of the Court, the preparation of rules, the duties of the respective staffs, the carrying out of all the provisions of the Land Estates Court Acts, the Land Acts, the Land Purchase Acts, and the Record of Title Act and Local Registration of Title Act, and shall from time to time mate rules for all or any of these purposes."
  He desired that a Court should be established which should command the confidence of all parties to land questions in Ireland. The Government proposed in their clause—Clause 22—to bring the Land Judge and the Judicial Commissioner into communication; but he did not quite understand whether the two were to sit together. It seemed rather to be a sort of "Box and Cox" arrangement, with his noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, acting the part of Mrs. Bouncer. Again, by Clause 23, the Lord Chancellor might nominate a Judge of the High Court to act as a Land Judge for the purposes of the Record of Title Act. But he understood that that Judge was to sit alone. In fact under the clause of the Government the different Judges did not form a Court sitting together, which was the object of his clause. It would be noticed that in the third sub-section of his clause, he proposed that the office of lay Commissioner should be abolished as vacancies arise. He did not say a word against the present holders of the office. But he thought it was not proper that appointments in connection with the administration of the Land Acts should be liable to be turned in the future to political appointments. Such appointments should be made in a way that could not be questioned by either the landlord or the tenant. In fact the main object of his Amendment was to establish a Land Court, the members of which would be men of the highest legal qualifications and especially of honour, and which would command the full confidence of all parties in Ireland.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid the subject raised by the Amendment was one of the very highest importance, and of the very deepest interest, and he quite appreciated the large and serious considerations
  36
  which had operated in influencing his noble Friend to suggest the desirability of trying to have established in Ireland one tribunal to deal with all questions connected with land. The provision in the Bill was more moderate and modest and more suited he thought to take its place in a Bill, which could not deal as exhaustively as was needed with such a great topic as that of consolidating the various Land Courts. Clause 22 brought the Land Court and the Land Commission Court into closer relations than hitherto. The Land Judge of the Land Court, and the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission Court, were given the power of interchanging their duties and of thus helping each other in the difficult, arduous and responsible duties. The proposal of his noble Friend, was wiser and more comprehensive. It was one that had his sympathy, but it would need a very complex piece of legislation to make into one harmonious whole the different tribunals dealing with land in Ireland. He therefore hoped his noble Friend would be satisfied with bringing his idea forward, and not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIrecognised that it would be idle to attempt to press the Amendment on the Government at this stage of the Session. He did not know whether they were to have any further land legislation—
  THE PRIME MINISTER: "Hear, hear!". [Laughter.]
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: But if the subject were again taken up by the Government, he hoped they would give their attention to the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CASTLETOWNmoved to leave out Sub-sections (1) to (4) inclusive, and insert instead thereof:—
  (1.) From and after the commencement of this Act the Judicial Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission shall he a Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and the office of Judicial Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission shall he abolished. The Land Judges shall be ex-officio members of the Irish Land Commission, and all powers and duties now vested in or to be performed by the Judicial Commissioner shall he transferred to and vested in the Land Judges and each of them. The Judicial Commissioner shall hold his office by the same tenure, and be entitled to the same salary and pension as if this Act had not passed, and save when required by

  37
  the Lord Lieutenant in Council he shall not he bound to perform any duties of a Judge of the High Court other than those incident to the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, the Land Purchase Acts, and the Land Law Acts.
  (2.) The Lord Chancellor and the Land Judges may make rules and from time to time vary such rules for the following purposes, namely:

  (a.) The distribution between the Land Judges of any duties capable of being discharged by a Land Judge.

  (b.) The distribution between the Land Judges and the Land Commissioners of any duties capable of being discharged by any member of the Land Commission under the Land Purchase Acts, but so that as far as practicable matters which are of judicial character involving any question of law shall be assigned to the Land Judges.

  (3.) Subject to any Order made pursuant to Section nineteen of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, the duties imposed upon the Land Judges by the seventy-fifth section of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877, may be discharged by some one or more of the Land Commissioners as the Lord Chancellor and the Land Judges may from time to time by order direct, and with such limitations as may be imposed by such Order. An appeal from any Order made by a Commissioner in the discharge of such duties shall lie in the first instance to a Laud Judge.
  (4.) The general rules and orders which shall be in force at the commencement of this Act, either in relation to proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts, or to proceedings within the exclusive cognizance of a Land Judge, shall remain and be in force until varied by rules to be made as hereinafter provided.
  (5.) The Lord Chancellor and the Land Judges may make rules and orders, and from time to time vary such rules and orders, for the regulation of the practice and procedure as to all proceedings which would have been within the exclusive cognizance of the Land Judges if this Act had not passed, and as to all proceedings under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act. Such rules shall provide for the payment into court of the proceeds of sales under the Land Purchase Acts, and for the distribution thereof amongst the parties entitled thereto.
  (6.) The Lord Chancellor and the Land Judges may from time to time make regulations for the discharge of any duties arising under such general rules by any officer of the Supreme Court now attached to the Land Judges, or otherwise employed in or about any jurisdiction, powers, and duties exercised by them, or by any officer of the Land Commission, and for the mutual relations between the officers of the Supreme Court and of the Land Commission. Such regulations shall provide that all such officers shall be employed in duties similar or analogous to those they at present discharge.
  The noble Lord said that in many respects his clause was technical, but he
  38
  would try to make its object clear. There must be absolute, not partial and halting, fusion of the offices of Land Judge and Judicial Commissioner, and as to land purchase proceedings the two Judges should be given all legal and judicial work, leaving the measuring of security, the sanctioning of advances and all ministerial work, including the work now done by the Land Judge as Receiver Judge as to managing estates to be distributed by rules amongst the Lay Commissioners. There should be, as was provided by the Purchase of Land Bill of 1890 and the Land Department Bill for 1891, one Court to which owners, whether unincumbered or incumbered, could go and put their estates or any portion of them on the market, or obtain declaration or certificate of titles, and to which incumbrancers might go to realise their charges. They should not be obliged, as at present, to go to the Land Judges Court to sell one part of their estates and to the Land Commission to sell the other. The title was common, and yet the charges override the whole estate which comprised head rents, land in lands, demesnes, house property, etc., as well as agricultural holdings. It was a great scandal and abuse that they or their incumbrancers should have to institute different proceedings in different courts to attain the same ends—sale or declaration of title. Under this clause, as proposed, all proceedings would be instituted by petition before the Land Judges. The schedules would show the lands capable of being sold to tenants, the lands or head rents which would have to be sold to the public and the lands as to which certificate of title was sought. He should not attempt to indicate what he supposed would be the procedure under this clause as laid down by rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor and the Judges. Probably an absolute Order would be made after due notice, as was the case now, on an owner's petition in the Land Judges' Court. Then the landlord would proceed to prove his title, and contemporaneously, the Land Judge to whom the matter was assigned would proceed to ascertain the tenancies, etc., and at the request of the owner refer the case to the Land Commissioners to inquire and report as to the character of the tenanted estate, and as to the amounts which the Treasury

  39
  might advance. Then the owner would be free to enter into agreements with his tenants and the sales would be carried out without delay, the purchase money being placed to the credit of the matter in the Court books and distributed according to the rights of the parties and with the proceeds of the sales, if any, of lands or property not the subject of Government advances. This was a very technical question, but he had tried to put it as clearly as he could. His object was solely simplification, and that the sale of estates, whether encumbered or unencumbered, should be carried out as quickly as possible. The ultimate solution of the Irish land question was facility of sale. He had endeavoured to make sales as simple and easy as possible, and it was by the fusion of the Land Judges Court and the Land Commission that he desired to attain that end.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid the proposal of his noble Friend to graft on to Clause 22 a series of important conditions indicated that he had closely studied the subject, and had brought to the matter great knowledge of a highly technical character. The noble Lord had shown great mastery of detail, a considerable knowledge of practice, and he had presented his case as well as it could possibly have been presented. But the clause of the Bill as it stood was the result of a great deal of consideration. It was not from ignorance of the matter or interest in these topics that the clause was as narrow as it was. But the question was immensely large and very complicated. It dealt with a great number of official and other interests and it would be simply impossible to recast all the machinery and arrangements embodied in the clause and apply themselves to consider another scheme, no matter how their minds were interested and attracted by the care and consideration that obviously had been given by the noble Lord to the elaboration of his various suggestions. He trusted that the noble Lord would be satisfied with the Government proposals and allow them to pass in the shape in which they had presented them.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he was much indebted to his noble and learned Friend for what he had said about his
  40
  feeble effort to amend the Government clause, but he hoped that before Report he would consider whether some portions of the proposed clause could not be embodied in the clause in the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There is not much time before Report. One of the days is Sunday.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he thought portions of the clause would fit in with the Government clause, and that the noble and learned Lord would find there were certain advantages to be gained by its adoption. He would not press the clause, but he trusted Lord Ashbourne would consider it.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn; Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MAYOmoved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 23:—
  "Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that clerks who have served for ten years and upwards in estate offices in Ireland are deprived of their appointments through the operation of land purchase promoted by the State, the Land Commission may appoint such clerks to the permanent staff of the Land Commission Office, notwithstanding that their age shall exceed the limit of age in the prescribed regulations: Provided that they produce satisfactory evidence that they possess the requisite ability to discharge the duties of clerks in the Land Commission Office, and are also qualified in respect of health and character; and such clerics shall he paid such salaries and superannuation allowances as the Lord Lieutenant with the consent of the Treasury may determine."
  He said he moved the insertion of the clause to draw attention to a class of men who by the action of land-purchase in Ireland had found themselves in a difficult and unpleasant position—the class of land agents' clerks, who, when the estate was sold, were thrown out of employment. He knew the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was in sympathy with these men. The action which he proposed was not without precedent, for when the State took over the telegraphs a great many of the telegraph clerks employed by the public companies were taken into the employment of the State. Mr. Justice Bewley had admitted the hard case of these estate agents' clerks. They knew their

  41
  business as well as the telegraph clerks did of whom he had spoken. One of them had been appointed to the permanent staff of the Land Commission Office. He moved the insertion of the clause that he might at least obtain words of sympathy from the Government with regard to these men. By the facilitation of the purchase of their estates by the tenants, a great many estate agents' clerks would entirely lose their appointments, and he submitted that they were entitled to consideration.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the House would readily accord the sympathy the noble Lord asked them for to these gentlemen, many of whom no doubt had been deprived of their employment under trying circumstances. He wished it were in his power to give something to the noble Earl more solid than sympathy, but he was afraid he could hold out no hopes of these estate clerks being introduced into the Civil Service regardless of the regulations of the Service as to age and other matters, and he was bound to tell the noble Earl that he had great doubt whether even without those difficulties this clause, which dealt with salaries and superannuation allowances to be paid with the consent of the Treasury, was a clause that could properly be introduced into the Bill. He was afraid, therefore, they must leave the matter where it stood.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CASTLETOWNmoved to insert the following new clause before Clause 24:—
  (1.) When at any time after the passing of this Act a land bank, with whose constitution and security the Treasury and the Land Commission may be satisfied, is established in any province or county of Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant in Council may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the issue by the Land Commission to such land bank of guaranteed land stock for such amounts and at such times as may be determined for the following purposes:

  (a.) To enable tenants to acquire by purchase and with the assistance of such land bank the ownerships of their holdings.

  (b.) To enable advances to be made to the owners of estates for the discharge of incumbrances affecting the same pending the sale of such estates to occupying tenants thereof, or for the purchase of such estates or parts of estate for the purposes of re-sale.

  42

  (c.) To enable advances to be made to tenants' purchasers for the improvement of their holdings.'

  (2.) Such advances shall not exceed the provisions of the guarantee fund which may at such times be applicable under the provisions of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, to the county or counties forming the district in which such land bank may be established.
  (3.) Rules for carrying the provisions of this section into effect shall be made by the Land Commission with the approval of the Treasury and the Privy Council, and such rules shall provide for the manner in which such advances shall be secured and for the approval of the Land Commission of all contracts for sale or for advances made by the said land bank.
  (4.) Such Order in Council shall not take effect unless confirmed by Parliament if a petition against it is presented to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and the petitioner appears and proceeds therewith.
  The noble Lord said the object of the clause was simply to empower the Lord Lieutenant in Council to promote the creation of what were called in foreign countries Land Banks. The object of land banks was to facilitate and improve the status of credit in the countries in which they were established. The clause itself was in no way contentious, and he was convinced that it would pass the House of Commons without difficulty. The scheme was safeguarded in every possible way. It must receive the permission of the Lord Lieutenant in Council and that of the Treasury to become law, and be ruled by the Land Commission as a matter which would come within their cognisance. Land Banks had been established for many years on the Continent. They had existed in Germany for 150 years, and for a long time in Austria, Switzerland, and, to a limited extent, in Italy, and in all had been absolutely successful. They had almost revolutionised the land system in those countries, had made their sales simple and easy, and helped tenants who had become fee simple owners, and in many instances had assisted landlords in carrying through sales. The banks, if promoted, would bridge over the time referred to by Lord Lansdowne between the vesting order to the tenants and the deposit money advanced by the Treasury and held by the High Court to the landlord, the seller. Although this was a technical subject, it was really very simple. By the kindness of the Prime Minister

  43
  details upon it were obtained some years ago by Her Majesty's representatives abroad and published in a Blue-book. There was a consensus of opinion that land banks were absolutely invaluable in the countries in which they existed and in favour of their creation in Ireland or even in England. They were a Continental idea, but sometimes we could learn from other people. To let the idea take a concrete form they could work it out in any way they chose. The Lord Lieutenant could make arrangements and rules to secure the proper working of the banks, and the Treasury could do the same. He appealed to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill to adopt this clause. There was nothing mandatory or obligatory in the matter, but it was perfectly permissive. He urged the same proposal in their Lordships' House in 1884; he had urged it since, and every step of their land legislation had tended towards the creation of land banks. Surely it was possible to create in Ireland what had answered so well under analogous circumstances in Continental countries. The clause would not overload the Bill, it would not be contentious, and it would prove of immense value in the near future, when they were carrying through sales. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEshould certainly not say a syllable in disparagement of the proposal of the noble Lord, who was correct in saying that these land banks had worked exceedingly well in Continental countries. He confessed he saw no reason whatever why a similar experiment should not be tried, and tried with success, in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He was afraid, however, be could not encourage the noble Lord to press this clause. The Bill was already a long and intricate Measure, and it had been very considerably altered during its progress through their Lordships' House. He thought it would be of doubtful policy to add to its provisions a new one of this kind, and he hoped the noble Lord—who had often done good service in ventilating proposals affecting the treatment of land in Ireland, some of which had been subsequently adopted with excellent results—would be content with having placed this proposal on the
  44
  notice Paper and explained it to the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  LORD TEMPLETOWNmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "made," to insert the words "before or." He contended that the acceptance of the Amendment would benefit all those tenants who in the past had purchased their holdings. They had been anxious in Ireland to make purchase as great a success as possible, and they were anxious that those who had purchased should have no ground whatever to regret having done so. There was no question that if the reductions in rent went on, as they had done under the second term, they should have this state of things arising—that the tenants whose rents had been reduced would before very long be in a better financial position with regard to the land than those who might purchase under this Bill, and more especially those who had purchased before its passing. In these circumstances it would be fair to remove any ground of complaint the tenants who had purchased in the past would have, and his Amendment would have the effect of bringing those tenants into an equally good position with those who might purchase under this Act. This would be a concession not to the landlords but to the tenants of Ireland. He would quote the case of a reduction of rent which would put his point clearly before their Lordships. There was a tenant whose old rent before 1881 was £10. The rent in 1881 was reduced from £10 to £5 10s. In the second term, which was decided lately, in the county of Armagh, the rent was further reduced to £4, or a total reduction of 60 per cent. on the old rent. It was very difficult to anticipate what the next reduction might be 15 years hence, but if it continued at the same rate it must be wiped out altogether. Such a tenant would, therefore, be in the position that he would pay no rent, while the man who purchased would have to go on paying his purchase annuities to the end of the period. He begged to move the Amendment.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment. The clause had been carefully considered in all its financial bearings, and they could not

  45
  alter the financial machinery at this stage. He must also add that the noble Lord seemed to have overlooked the point that very material relief was already given under the clause, in respect of advances made before the commencement of this Act. The fifth sub-section provided for such advances under conditions which were certainly not illiberal.
  LORD TEMPLETOWNsaid his point was that the tenants who had purchased should be put in exactly the same position as those who were about to purchase.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CASTLETOWNwould not press his Amendment after the kind tone of the speech of his noble Friend, but he would ask the noble Marquess to consider the advisability of bringing in a short Bill next year to promote the creation of these banks, which, as it would be non-contentious, there should be no difficulty in passing. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas afraid he could not go any further than he had done in the statement he had just made.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved an Amendment providing that, in the case of every advance under the Land Purchase Acts made after the commencement of this Act, the purchase annuity should be recalculated every five years instead of every 10 as proposed in the clause. He observed that ever since he had owned property in Ireland he had endeavoured to promote the system of land purchase by enabling the occupier to become the owner of his holding upon terms agreeable to himself and his landlord, and without any risk to the State. He was glad to see that in this Bill the Government had done what they could to remedy the defects in the Land Bill of 1891 so as to make it more attractive to owners to sell and tenants to buy. On this ground he welcomed the proposal to give a reduction of rent every 10 years to those tenants who had bought. But he thought that
  46
  tenants who bought 10 years ago might have a grievance, and might consider that had they united for these 10 years they need not have paid so high a price as they had done. He would in these circumstances appeal to the Government to alter the decade which had been fixed in the clause to a quinquennial term of years. To his mind such a change would greatly add to the attractions of the Rill, without any risk either to the taxpayer or the Treasury. In theory it sounded plausible to the tenant to tell him that if he bought he obtained a reduction of rent, and at the end of 49 years would become the owner of his holding. Rut, regarding the matter from a practical point of view, he did not know how many of their Lordships would look forward with any degree of satisfaction to the; positions they would be occupying in 49 years' time; consequently he did not wonder if the Irish tenant looked upon the 49 years as a period with regard to which he need not give much consideration. What he would like would be, if possible, an immediate reduction, and, if he could not have that, as rapid a reduction as possible in the payment of rent, whether it was to the State or to his landlord. He thought they would make this scheme of purchase far more attractive by giving a reduction every five years and lengthening the term at which the purchaser would become in the future the owner of the holding. That was the reason which had induced him to move the Amendment.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that he was told that an Amendment similar to the present one was moved in another place by a private Member and that it was ruled out of order because it altered the conditions of the security given in the Rill. He apprehended that if that argument applied in another place it would apply still more strongly in their Lordships House. Rut he should like to put it to the noble Marquess whether, upon its merits, his proposal was one upon which it would be desirable to insist. In the Rill the annuity payable by the tenant was recalculated at intervals of 10 years, the tenant being, at each recalculation, credited with the amount of the capital which had been replaced by the

  47
  operation of the sinking fund. The noble Marquess proposed, as he understood, to substitute for periods of 10 years periods of five years. It occurred to him that this would enormously add to the trouble of those officials upon whom would be thrown the duty of making these somewhat laborious calculations, nor, as he understood the matter, would the advantage to the purchasing tenant really be very material. He hoped the noble Marquess would not ask the House to divide on his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he had not the slightest intention of dividing the House. He merely held out the suggestion in order to make the scheme, with which he heartily concurred, more attractive that it was at the present moment. If the Government could have seen their way to give reductions at earlier periods than those contained in the Bill, he was sure they would have never regretted it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Part III.—LAND PURCHASE.
  Clause 24,—

  ALTERATION OF MODE OF CALCULATING PURCHASE ANNUITY.
  (1.) In the case of every advance under the Land Purchase Acts made after the commencement of this Act the purchase annuity shall he calculated and payable—

  (a) during the first decade of the annuity, upon the total advance; and

  (b) during the second and third decades, upon the portion of the advance which is ascertained, as provided by this section, to be unpaid at the end of the previous decade; and

  (c) after the end of the third decade, upon the portion of the advance which is ascertained, as provided by this section, to be then unpaid,

  and shall continue to be paid until the whole advance is ascertained as provided by this section to have been repaid.
  (2.) The Land Commission shall, in accordance with such rules as the Treasury may make—

  (a) at the end of each of the said decades ascertain how much of the advance has been repaid by means of the accumulation during the decade of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents
  48
  repayment of capital, and the residue of the advance shall be the unpaid amount upon which the subsequent annuity is to be calculated and paid; and

  (b) ascertain when the whole advance has been repaid by means of the accumulation of that portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital.

  (3.) If the proprietor of a holding charged with an annuity applies to the Land Commission within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, prior to the end of each of the said decades, that the annuity during the next decade shall not he reduced under this section, no alteration of the annuity shall then be made.
  (4.) The amount of the annuity, when recalculated as provided by this section, shall be certified by the Land Commission, and that certificate shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall be sent by them for registration to the registration authority under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891.
  (5.) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in the case of an annuity for any advance made under the Land Purchase Acts before the commencement of this Act, subject as follows:—

  (a) where more than ton years have elapsed since an annuity for the repayment of of the advance began, the amount of the advance remaining unpaid shall be ascertained as at the end of the last completed decade since that beginning, and the reduction of the annuity in the current decade shall date from the gale day next after the commencement of this Act;

  (b) In a case where purchaser's insurance money has been paid, the amount so paid, and not set off against arrears, shall be taken into account at the end of the first decade, as if it were a portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital; and the provisions with respect to setting off against arrears purchaser's insurance money so paid shall not apply after the end of such decade.

  *THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause:—
  Where any tithe-rent charge vested in the Irish Land Commission by the Irish Church Act, 1869, has been or may hereafter be sold under the provisions of Section 32 of the said Act, and the purchase money is made repayable by a terminable annuity as in said section provided, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  (a) If the sale was made before the commencement of this Act, the annuity may be reduced on the application of the purchaser in the manner provided

  49
  with respect to existing purchase annuities by Sub-section five of Section 24 of this Act;

  (b) In the case of sales made after the commencement of this Act, the annuity may on the application of the purchaser be periodically reduced in the manner provided by Section 24 of this Act respecting purchase annuities created after the commencement of this Act;

  Provided, however, that in all such cases the annuity on the original or (as the case may be) the unpaid amount of the purchase money shall be four pounds nine shillings instead of four pounds per centum, and the interest involved in such annuity shall be three per centum.
  He hoped this was a clause which the Government would be able to accept. It was, in a certain sense, a matter connected with the Treasury, but only in a certain sense, because it did not deal with public money in the ordinary sense of the word. It dealt really with certain repayments to the Irish Church Fund over which the Treasury, no doubt, had some control. A short time ago he brought a Bill into the House for which the Government gave a Second Reading on condition that it did not go any further this Session. That Bill dealt with two things. It dealt first of all with a matter which was to a certain extent dealt with in Clause 36 of the Bill with regard to the tithe-rent charge annuities. With regard to that matter the Government allowed him to have a Second Reading as a recognition of the principle of 45 years instead of 52 years being the basis of calculation for repayment, but he was not allowed to extend the matter any further than it was done in Clause 36. As far as that agreement went, he was bound by it, and he did not propose any amendment to that part of the clause which regarded repayment. But there was another matter, possibly a smaller matter, dealt with in the second section of the clause as to which he was not bound, nor were the Government bound by having assented to the principle in having given him a Second Reading. When a person had purchased his tithe-rent charge and converted it into a sinking fund annuity, he would have to pay for a lengthened period of years a certain annual sum part of which represented capital, and part of which represented interest on the sinking fund principal, and what he wanted the
  50
  Government to do was to place those persons upon the same footing as that in which they had just placed the tenant purchasers of farms by Clause 24 of this Bill. He asked that they should recalculate the annuities every ten years, and that consequently the persons who were repaying their tithe-rent charge should, if they so liked, pay a smaller annual sum at each recurring decade, and of course the period of repayment would extend over a longer period. This was a matter to which a great deal of importance was attached, and if the Government could accept it it would give a very sensible relief to many persons who were very much in need of relief just now.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid this Amendment was only placed on the Paper that day, and he had not had time to examine it very thoroughly. But the matter with which it dealt was one which had been more than once discussed in that House, and the proposals of the noble Lord as to the commutation of tithe - rent charge were certainly not all received by the Government. They had, in the Bill, admitted the principle for which the noble Lord had so often contended, in regard to cases where there was a sale of an estate to tenants. But the noble Earl, in this Amendment, asked them to go considerably further and to deal with the commutation of rent charge generally.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he did not touch the case of immediate redemption, which was dealt with in a later clause of the Bill, but he dealt with the case of those persons who did not want to redeem the charge at once or upon sale, but intended going on until the end of the term. What he asked was that the length of the period should be extended, and that in the same way as they were giving reductions to tenant purchasers, from ton years to ten years, the amount of the annuity should be recalculated, and that the persons should pay a smaller sum over that lengthened period.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he was afraid he had somewhat misapprehended the proposal, but it was quite clear that it was a financial proposal of some magnitude, and he could not undertake to add it to the Bill.
  LORD CASTLETOWNhoped the noble Earl would bring it up on Report. It was evident he had had some arrangement with the Government which had broken down.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid the Government could not admitthe principle, but he would bring it up on Report if it was any use.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the clause was out of order.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid that as it seemed to be the wish of some of his noble Friends, he would take the opinion of their Lordships on the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDasked his noble Friend if he was quite clear that it was in order. Surely it was a financial proposal of high magnitude, and, therefore, was it not a privilege Amendment?
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he did not think it was.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is obviously a financial operation of considerable magnitude that must affect the Treasury. That must be dealt with by the financial authorities of the country. It is a very serious thing to move that without full consideration, and without being thoroughly advised as to its legal status.
  LORD CASTLETOWNhoped the noble and learned Lord would not ride off on privilege. Some arrangement was entered into.
  *THE EARL OF BELMORE: No, that was with regard to the matter dealt with in Clause 36. I withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 25,—

  APPLICATION OF PART OF ACT TO ANNUITIES UNDER 32 & 33 VICT. C. 42.
  The Land Commission, upon the application of any person liable to pay interest on any simple mortgage under section fifty-two of the Irish Church Act, 1869, may, if they think fit, by Order convert that mortgage into a mortgage to secure repayment of the principal of the mortgage debt then outstanding, with interest at the rate of three and one-eighth per centum per annum, by means of an annuity at the rate of four per centum per annum on the said principal, payable by half-yearly payments on the days fixed for the payment of the interest on the said mortgage, until the whole principal has been repaid, and such order shall be binding
  52
  upon all persons interested, whether in the equity of redemption of such mortgage or otherwise. The foregoing provisions with respect to the calculation of a purchase annuity may be applied by the Land Commissioners with the necessary modifications, to the calculation of the instalments of an annuity by means of which any mortgage debt is payable under section 52 of the Irish Church Act, 1869, and the Acts amending the same.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 26,—

  ABOLITION OF COUNTY PERCENTAGE.
  The amount which under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, is required to he applied as county percentage shall, when received in respect of an instalment of the annuity falling due after the commencement of this Act, cease to be so applied and shall be paid to the National Debt Commissioners and applied as a portion of the purchase annuity which represents repayment of capital.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 27,—

  ABOLITION OF PURCHASER'S INSURANCE MONEY.
  In the case of any advance after the commencement of this Act for the purchase of a holding, and also in the case of an instalment of a purchase annuity which shall become payable after the passing of this Act, purchaser's insurance money shall not be payable. In the case of a purchase annuity payable at the date of the commencement of this Act, the amount of the purchase annuity as from the date of such commencement shall be certified by the Land Commission, and sent by them for registration to the registration authority under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to leave out the words "of the purchase annuity as from the date of such commencement," and to insert instead the words "thereof as altered by this section."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 28,—

  AS TO GUARANTEE DEPOSIT.
  (1.) The Land Commission on making an advance may dispense with the whole or any

  53
  part of the guarantee deposit being made or retained if they think the security for the repayment of the advance is sufficient without it.
  (2.) The Land Commission may, if they think fit, on application, pay to the persons entitled thereto the whole or any part of the guarantee deposit made or retained in respect of advances under the purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, except in a case where any part of the deposit has been actually applied in pursuance of the Land Purchase Acts.
  (3.) In the case of any advance made otherwise than under the Purchase Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Land Commission may pay out of the guarantee deposit to the person entitled thereto a sum equal to the portion of the advance which at the end of any decade is ascertained under the provisions of this Act to have been repaid.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid the clause empowered the Land Commission when they saw fit to dispense with the whole or any part of the guarantee deposit. The Amendments he had to the clause would make it obligatory on the Land Commission to dispense with the guarantee deposit or any part thereof, but he put in words which gave them a governing power, perhaps not quite so stringent as that in the clause, but which he thought met the case better. He proposed that the clause should read—
  "May dispense with the whole or any part of the guarantee deposit being made or retained, unless they think the security for the repayment of the advance is insufficient."
  It was merely inverting the sentence, and he thought it made the clause clearer while it gave the same power.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Amendment, as it stood on the Paper, was clearly not a desirable one. The noble Lord had given notice to move to substitute the word "shall" for "may," but, of course, the sentence was governed by the words "if they think fit," and to say they shall if they think fit, instead of may, altered the sense very little. He understood that now the noble Lord proposed to invert the language of the clause. He would rather not accept any words in a clause which he had not seen and been able to examine.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he would bring up the words on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CASTLETOWNmoved, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "persons," and to insert instead thereof the word "person."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CASTLETOWNmoved, in Subsection (2), to insert after "1891," "or the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act 1891." He thought there was an omission.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid there was not an omission. This clause deals with the power of dispensing with the guarantee deposit, and he was told that in the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act 1891, there was nothing about guarantee deposit.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: Oh, yes, there is, but I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DE VESCTmoved in Subsection (3) to insert after the word "may" the words "at any time after the expiration of ten years from the making of the advance." He said the Amendment was to the effect that the Land Commission should pay out the guarantee deposit under the Act of 1885. As the sum still in the hands of the Land Commissioner under the Act of 1885 was not a very largo one, he thought the Commissioners might exercise some discretion in repaying it. He proposed that they should be empowered to repay it at the expiration of ten years. At present he believed the time was 17½ years. He asked the Government to remit the 7½ years. The security under the Act was ample. As the noble Marquess said the other day, at present there was only under the Acts of 1885 and 1891 the sum of about £4,000 outstanding and that was in process of collection.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDunderstood that under the Land Purchase Act of 1885, one of the most important elements in the security, was the existence of this guarantee deposit. On the basis and on the faith of that, the provisions were sanctioned by those in charge of the public purse. There was no other security except the honesty and reliability of the Irish tenants, and the House would have no

  55
  sanction or warrant for withdrawing from the security or giving power to withdraw from the security what might be a substantial sum. The guarantee deposit was a portion of the security of the State and must be adhered to.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsupported the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said that the public purse must be protected. If they paid the guarantee deposit back up to the first ten years, they did help the public purse, because at the present time the Treasury was forced to pay 3 per cent. on the guarantee deposit. Therefore if the Treasury paid the guarantee deposit to those persons to whom it ought to go, the Treasury would cease to have to pay the 3 per cent., and, as was well known, Consols and Treasury money was now at 2¾ per cent. There was another important point to be considered. It was that the purchasers under the Act had already paid 10 years' instalments. Was it likely that a man who had paid 10 years' instalments would default. Every year his security was increasing in value, and the risk therefore to the State was lessening.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid they were quite powerless in the matter. He felt the persuasive force of what had been said about 3 per cent., but that was a matter which ought to be put to the conscience of the Treasury.
  LORD CASTLETOWNasked if the noble and learned Lord would use a few persuasive words to the Treasury.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My noble Friend does not know the Treasury. [Laughter.]
  LORD CASTLETOWNthought it was possible the Treasury would agree to it. He did not think they realised what the point was.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 29,—

  AMENDMENT OF 51 & 52 Vict., C 49, S. 2.
  In computing the amount advanced to any one purchaser under the provisions of the second section of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, an advance made to such purchaser as a trustee for another, or as personal
  56
  representative of a deceased person, shall not, if as regards advances made after the passing of this Act, he declares at the time that he was so acting, be included, and for the purposes of the said section the advance in such cases shall he deemed to have been made to the person or persons personally interested in such advance.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to leave out the words "or persons personally," and to insert instead thereof the word "beneficially."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 30,—

  EXPEDITING PROCEEDINGS ON SALES. SEE 50 & 51 VICT. c. 33, s. 14, AND 51 & 52 VICT. c. 49 s. 3.
  (1.) Where an agreement has been made for the purchase of a holding, and the Land Commission consider that the purchase money is adequate in amount, and are satisfied that the person purporting to be the landlord or his mortgagee has, by himself or by his agent, or a receiver, been, for not less than six years, in receipt of the rents of the holding, and have ascertained in the prescribed manner that the estate in respect of which such person claims as landlord is sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts, he shall be deemed to be prima facie entitled to carry such agreement into effect; but if it appears to the Land Commission that the said estate is a leasehold for years not renewable for ever, they shall cause the prescribed notice to be given to the poison who is entitled in reversion on the expiration of the lease. Provided always, that where the Land Commission are satisfied that the person purporting to be the landlord has a good and marketable title to his interest in the holding they shall not be required to consider the purchase money is adequate in amount.
  (2.) Where the Land Commission are satisfied that the persons purporting to be the landlord and the tenant are, prima facie, entitled to carry into effect an agreement for the purchase of a holding, and sanction an advance for the purchase of a holding, they shall, as soon as may be, make a vesting order to the effect that the amount of the advance be paid into the High Court to the prescribed credit to abide the order of that Court, and that on such payment the holding shall vest in the purchaser.
  (3.) The vesting order shall be effectual to vest in the purchaser, and charge the purchase annuity on the fee simple and inheritance of the holding purchased, subject—

  (a) to such exceptions and reservations (if any) as may be specified in the agreement for purchase and approved by the Land Commission respecting any right

  57
  reserved to the vendor or superior landlord in any case in which the Land Commission is satisfied in the prescribed manner that the effect of such reservation was explained to and understood by the purchaser, or the purchaser is represented by a solicitor other than the vendor's solicitor; and

  (b) to any public rights affecting the holding; and

  (c) to the provisions of this Act respecting the tenant's interest, and respecting easements, rights, and privileges;

  but, save as aforesaid, discharged from all claims, whether estates, charges, reservations, covenants, conditions, interests or incumbrances whatsoever, as well of Her Majesty the Queen, and any superior landlord, as of all other persons whomsoever (except the tenant and persons claiming under him) who are interested in the holding, whether as incumbrancers or otherwise, and all such claims shall cease as against the holding, and shall attach to the purchase money paid into the High Court in respect of the holding, in like manner as immediately before the sale they attached to the holding.
  (4.) The money so paid into the High Court shall be distributed and dealt with by that Court in like manner as if it wore the proceeds of the sale of an estate sold under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, and for the purpose of such distribution of or dealing with the said money, the High Court may, if it appears to such Court necessary, ascertain the amount or value of such claims as above mentioned, and cause that amount or value to be discharged, redeemed, or satisfied out of the said money.
  (5.) The vesting order shall be an order securing an advance within the meaning of section eighteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and that section shall apply accordingly.
  (6.) The interest vested by the vesting order in the purchaser shall be deemed to be a graft upon the previous interest of the tenant in the holding, and shall be subject to any rights or equities arising from its being such graft: Provided that any then substituting charge on such previous interest which was created under any Act in respect of some improvement on the holding, shall be a charge on the estate vested in the purchaser by the vesting order next after the purchase-annuity.
  (7.) If any guarantee deposit is paid or retained, the amount thereof shall be excepted from the payment into the High Court, and hold by the Land Commission, but the vesting order shall take effect and the right to the deposit be determined, as if the amount had been paid into that Court with the rest of the purchase money.
  (8.) Where the Judicial Commissioner certifies that the estate is free from incumbrances (as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887), and that the purchase money can be paid or distributed immediately, the advance need not be paid into the High Court, and this section shall apply in like manner as if it were so paid. The provisions of this section and of any other
  58
  enactment in this Act with respect to purchase money and the payment thereof into court or otherwise shall, where the advance is made by means of guaranteed land stock, apply to that stock and to the transfer thereof into court or otherwise, and enactments relating to the payment shall be construed accordingly.
  (9.) The Land Commission or the High Court shall not in any case be empowered to make any further requisition as to title than a purchaser would be entitled to make under the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, or any Act amending the same.
  THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid their Lordships would have gathered from the remarks he had made that he was a staunch advocate of the principle of purchase. He congratulated the Government on having made the question of purchase the keystone of their Bill, but, as he pointed out in the Debate on the Second Reading, if Clause 30 were allowed to stand, the keystone of the Measure would be absolutely destroyed. No landlord in Ireland would under the circumstances, consider himself justified in selling his property to a tenant. Consequently, if a landlord would not sell and tenants wished to buy, the whole system of purchase came to a deadlock. On the Second Reading he proved that the landlord, under this clause, would give up his land, and until he had proved his title would receive no money in hard cash in return. There was great difficulty and expense in proving title in Ireland, and this was a great deterrent to purchase. For instance, it cost him £3,000 to sell his first £100,000 pounds' worth of land. Was it likely that people who had a small margin and were perhaps receiving from honest tenants 4 per cent. for their money would sacrifice 3 per cent. in proving their title? In addition to the expense, the proving of title was a very lengthy business. In the House of Commons the Attorney-General for Ireland stated that it might take a landowner three or four years to prove his title. What happened to his money during that time? He did not receive it to pay off his mortgagee, to whom he was paying 4½ or 5 per cent., but it was locked up, and he was paid 2½ per cent. interest for it. Take the case of a landlord with an income of £1,000 a year which was mortgaged up to £500. The landlord sold at 20 years' purchase, winch brought him in £20,000. He was not able to prove his title for

  59
  three or four years, and receiving only 2½ per cent. for the £20,000 he got exactly £500 a year. There was, consequently, no margin whatever left to him if he sold between what he received from the Land Commission and what he paid to the mortgagee. The argument of the noble and learned Lord sounded exceedingly plausible. He was the owner of mortgaged property, and he should be exceedingly glad to deal with it in the terms suggested. However plausible the proposal might be to the individual it could not be carried out generally. What he proposed was a work of destruction; he proposed to destroy the clause, but he also proposed to carry through a work of construction. He had put down a clause in the place of the one he proposed to omit, and he understood that the Government saw no reason why it should not be accepted. He concluded by moving the omission of the clause.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid when he introduced the Bill he admitted that there was a difficulty as to the form in which the clause originally stood—that it might act as a deterrent and prevent many persons from taking advantage of the purchase clauses of the Bill. He indicated that in his opinion there was no possible way of escaping from this difficulty except by transferring the loss of income from the shoulders of the vendor of the estate to the shoulders of the incumbrancers. He added that that did not seem to involve any great injustice to the latter. It was perfectly true that this alternative had not been regarded with any favour—["Hear, hear!"]; and they were not prepared to insert in the Bill any provision to bring about such a result. He admitted that they were face to face with the fact that the clause, as it stood, was one which was not likely to work, and therefore they were prepared to accept in principle the alternative clause which the noble Marquess had on the Paper, with liberty to examine it carefully, and, if necessary, amend it before the Bill left the House. [Cheers.]
  Sub-sections (1) to (7), inclusive, struck out.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved to substitute the following subsections:—

  EXTINGUISHMENT OF SUPERIOR INTERESTS.
  (1.) Where any land has been sold under the Land Purchase Acts, as amended by this Act, or where a lessor or grantor has signified his consent to the Redemption of Kent (Ireland) Act, 1891, a land judge may, if he think fit, order that the sale of such land, or the sale consequent on the lodgment of such consent, as the ease may he, shall he made discharged from superior interests as defined by this section or from any of them, and in every such case the land shall he vested accordingly, and such superior interests, or the value thereof, shall become a lien upon, and to be redeemed or satisfied out of the purchase money of such land.
  (2.) The powers of apportionment given to the Laud Commission by Section ten of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, and Section sixteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, shall extend to superior interests and be exercised in such mannner as shall appear equitable, and shall not be limited to an apportionment between the land sold and the residue of the land subject to the superior interest.
  (3.) The price or compensation to be paid in respect of a superior interest, or of any apportioned part thereof, shall be determined in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section sixteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, for the redemption of annuities, rent charges, and rents: Provided that, if a land Judge is of opinion that any such superior interest is of no appreciable value to the persons entitled thereto, the purchase moneys of the land may be distributed without regard to such superior interest.
  (4.) If a superior interest, or the benefit arising thereunder, is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, the person who constitutes the tenant for life, or who has the powers of a tenant for life under those Acts, shall have power to enter into any consent in relation to the sale being made discharged from such superior interest, and to the redemption or satisfaction of the same out of the purchase money.
  (5.) Where a superior interest is subject to an incumbrance as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the land Judge shall, for the purpose of distribution of the price or compensation payable in respect of such superior interest, have the same powers as if such incumbrance had been charged directly upon the land sold.
  (6.) Superior interest shall include any rent, rent charge, annuity, fees, duties, or services payable or to be rendered in respect of the land sold to any person, including Her Majesty and Her successors, and any exceptions, reservations, covenants, conditions, or agreements contained in any fee-farm grant, or other conveyance in fee, or lease under which such land is held, and, if such land is held under a lease for lives or years renewable for ever, or for a term of years

  61
  of which not less than sixty are unexpired at the date of the sale, shall include any reversion or estate expectant on the determination of such lease or expiration of such term, and notwithstanding that such reversion or estate may he vested in Her Majesty and Her successors.
  (7.) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of the public or of any class of the public in respect of the land sold, or the rights of any person or persons in respect of the waters of any stream or watercourse or of any right of way.
  New Sub-sections (1) to (7), inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 31,—

  FRAMING OF AND DISPENSING WITH VESTING ORDER AND REGISTRATION OF TITLE ON PURCHASE.
  (1.) The Land Commission shall prepare the vesting order, or if they see fit to dispense therewith, shall fiat the agreement for the purchase of the holding, subject to such conditions, exceptions, and modifications as they think necessary; and on the advance being paid into the High Court, such fiat shall have effect as if it were a vesting order made by the Commission in relation to the holding purchased, and the provisions of this Act referring to vesting orders shall apply and be constructed accordingly.
  (2.) The Land Commission shall, immediately after the vesting order or fiat, prepare and transmit to the registering authority under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, the prescribed particulars as to the holding, in order that the title of the purchaser to the ownership of the fee simple of the holding may be registered pursuant to that Act.
  (3.) Section thirty-four of the said Act (which relates to the correction and rectification of the register) shall extend to a vesting order or fiat as if it were the register.
  (4.) An agreement for purchase, a vesting order, or fiat, shall not operate to convert the interest of the purchaser into real estate.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid the clause as it stood was of very little use. Apparently the solicitor of the seller would have very little to do with the sale. The experience which they had had during the last 10 years of the sales of land showed that it was very important that the solicitor of the seller should safeguard, not only the interest of the seller in the land, but the interest of those to whom the land was sold. The clause, he believed, accentuated the existing danger, while it did not move from the landlord any of the expense. The landlord would still have to pay the
  62
  Stamp Duties, the printing expenses, and the expenses of maps, and the solicitor of the seller was the only person whose interest it was to look to the boundaries and see that they were properly marked. It was an absolutely technical question, and he asked the noble and learned Lord to look into it carefully. Unless some change was made, they would find very grave dangers arising in the future. That was not alone his opinion; it was the opinion of experts in sales. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the clause would be amended so as to obviate all danger.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDadmitted the necessity of dealing with this important matter with extreme caution. A great deal had been said in regard to delay, but on investigation it had been found over and over again that the delay was due to the fact—without making any charge against him—that the solicitor had not been so active as he might have been in regard to the vesting order. He had no doubt that when they transferred to the Land Commission the primary duty of preparing the vesting order every reasonable check would be applied to see that the vesting order would stand the test of examination. He would look into the matter before the Report stage. He thought the clause would be found to be a workable one, and one which might somewhat hasten matters, avoid delay, and which would not lead to any real risk.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he was obliged to the noble and learned Lord, and he hoped that he would really look into the matter before Report. He wished to call special attention to Subsection 4, which seemed a very harmless one, but the effect of which would be that in any case where a tenant had purchased and become a fee simple owner of his holding, the estate would pass as personal estate. The result would be that at the end of 49 years the fee simple owner would be able to divide his holding into as many portions as he pleased, and this would lead to enormous sub-division. This arrangement had been found to work very badly on the Continent, and in Austria and Germany at present they were trying to revert to the arrangement which existed now in this country. He would ask the noble

  63
  and learned Lord if possible to excise the sub-section.
  Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 32,—

  AS TO REDEMPTION OR APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUITIES, RENT-CHARGES, ETC., UNDER 50 & 51 VICT., C. 33, SS. 15, 16.
  (1.) For the purpose of the distribution of, or other dealing with, an advance paid into the High Court under this Act, sections fifteen and sixteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and any other unrepealed enactment in the Land Purchase Acts, or this Act, relating to the redemption or apportionment of charges on holdings, or otherwise to the distribution of the purchase money of a holding, shall apply as if the High Court were the Land Commission and the money paid into that Court were the holding.
  (2.) Where an annuity, rent-charge, or rent, ordered under the said sections to be redeemed is subject to any incumbrance as defined by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the High Court shall have the same power in relation to that incumbrance under the said section fifteen as that Court would have if the incumbrance were charged upon the land sold.
  (3.) For the purpose of an agreement respecting the redemption price of any annuity, rent-charge, or rent apportioned under the said section sixteen, the High Court may determine the parties by whom the consent may be given for the determination of the price by the High Court.
  (4.) The said sections as amended by this section shall apply to any continual liability for any annuity, lent charge, or rent, in like manner as they apply to the annuity, ren charge, or rent itself, and where any contingent liability has no appreciable value, the money may be distributed without regard to such liability.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Amendments to this clause which stood in his name were very closely connected with the new Clause 30 that the noble Lord had added to the Bill, and he, therefore, proposed to endeavour to incorporate them with the new clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved to omit Clause 32, because it was covered by the new clause which had been added.
  Clause 32 struck out.
  Clause 33,—
  (1.) A holding vested in a purchaser by a vesting order under this Act shall continue to
  64
  have appurtenant thereto and to be subject to, as the case may be, any previously existing easements, rights, and appurtenances; and any privilege previously in fact enjoyed, whether by permission of the landlord or otherwise, in such manner and for such time that, if the holding had belonged to a different owner from the rest of the estate, it would have been an easement or right, shall be an easement or right within the meaning of this section, and shall be appurtenant or exercisable over the holding, as the case may be.
  (2.) The vesting order may, if the Land Commissioner think fit, declare that the sale is made subject to or free from any particular easement, right, or appurtenance, and such declaration shall have full effect.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved to omit the words
  "and any privilege previously in fact enjoyed whether by permission of the landlord or otherwise, in such manner and for such time that, if the holding had belonged to a different owner from the rest of the estate, it would have been an easement or right shall be an easement or right within the meaning of this section, and shall be appurtenant to or exerciseable over the holding as the case may be."
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he did not understand the words.
  *LORD ASHBOURNEthought the words were entirely reasonable. They did not propose that a tenant who had only enjoyed these privileges for a short time should get the benefit, but that if he had enjoyed the privileges in such manner and for a sufficiently long time as, but from the common ownership, to make them legal he was not to lose the benefit of them if a sale was made.
  The Question, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause," having been put,
  THE EARL OF MAYO, seated and with his hat on, said that all they wanted was a clear explanation.
  The Committee divided:—

  CONTENTS

  59

  NON-CONTENTS

  44

  DIVISION LIST.—CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Northampton, M.

  65

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Emly, L.

  Glenesk, L.

  Harris, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Iveagh, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  James, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Crewe, E.

  Dudley, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Hardwieke, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Morley, E.

  Kintore, E. (E. Kintore.)

  Onslow, E.

  Romney, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Spencer, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Rayleigh, L

  Rothschild, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Armstrong, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Belper, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Burton, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Churchill, L. [TELLER.]

  Tweedmouth.

  Colchester, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Windsor, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Zouche, of Haryngworth, L.

  Delamore, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Abecorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Chaworth, L. (E Meath.)

  Clarina, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Caledon, E.

  de Ros, L.

  de Montalt, E.

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

  Ferrers, E.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Dunalley, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Dunleath, L.

  Lucan, E

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Mayo, E. [TELLER.]

  Portarlington, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Rosse, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Macnaghten, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Massy, E.

  Monck, L.(V. Monck.)

  Annaly, L.

  Muskerry, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Raglan, L.

  Rathdonnell, B.

  Carew, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Castletown, L. [TELLER.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Clause 33,—

  AS TO EASEMENTS, ETC., WHEN INVESTING ORDER IS MADE.
  (1) A holding vested in a purchaser by a vesting order under this Act shall continue to have appurtenant thereto and to be subject to, as the case may be, any previously existing easements, rights, and appurtenances; and any privilege previously in fact enjoyed, whether by permission of the landlord or otherwise, in such manner and for such time that, if the holding had belonged to a different owner from the rest of the estate, it would have been an casement or right, shall be an easement or right within the meaning of this section, and shall be appurtenant to or exereiseable over the holding, as the case may be.
  (2) The vesting order may, if the Land Commission think fit, declare that the sale is made subject to or free from any particular easement, right, or appurtenance, and such declaration shall have full effect.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to insert at the end of the clause the following new sub-section:—
  "(3) This section shall extend to any sale made by the Land Judge in pursuance of the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, in like manner as if it were herein re-enacted with the necessary modifications."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 34,—

  LIABILITY FOR ARREARS OF RENT, AND INTEREST ON PURCHASE MONEY AFTER AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE.
  (1) Where an agreement for the purchase of a holding is made after the commencement of this Act, and the Land Commission have sanctioned an advance for such purchase such sanction shall be signified by an order, and the purchaser shall be discharged from all liability to the vendor in respect of any liabilities affecting the holding at the date of the agreement, including all rent and arrears existing at such date; but if the advance is refused the agreement shall be void, and the tenant shall be liable to pay rent as if the agreement had not been made.
  (2) Interest on the purchase money from the date of the said agreement until the day from which the purchase-annuity begins, shall be payable half-yearly on the first day of May and first day of November by the purchaser, and shall be paid to, and be collected and recoverable by the Land Commission, in like manner as if it were an instalment of the purchase annuity charged upon the holding, and when received

  67
  by them shall be paid to the person in receipt of the rent at the date of the agreement or such other person as may prove himself to be entitled thereto, and if the advance is refused shall be allowed by the landlord to the tenant as a payment on account of rent.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (1), after the words "of this Act, and" to insert the words "is lodged with."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to leave out the following words:—
  "have sanctioned an advance for such purchase such sanction shall be signified by an order and."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYmoved in Sub-section (1), after the word "purchaser" to insert the words "in the event of the sale being carried out."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that he was informed that the Amendment was unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, Sub-section (1), after the words "liable to pay rent," to insert the words "and arrears."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (2), after the words "received by them, shall" to insert the words:—
  "as respects the period subsequent to the date of the advance be applied in payment of the interest due under section twenty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, and subject thereto shall"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 35,—

  ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF HOLDING SUBJECT TO A RENT CHARGE.
  Where a sale of a holding is made by a landlord to a tenant in consideration of the tenant
  68
  paying a fine and engaging to pay to the vendor a rent charge, the Land Commission may, if satisfied with the security, make an advance under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act to the tenant for the purposes of such purchase of any sum not exceeding the amount of the fine payable to the landlord, subject as follows:—

  (a) The advance shall not exceed the saleable value of the landlord's interest in the holding after deducting such sum as appears to the Land Commission to be the capital value of the rent charge.

  (b) The advance shall not be made where the rent charge exceeds half the rent which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, would he a fair rent for the holding.

  (c) An ejectment for non-payment of rent shall not be brought in respect of the rent charge.

  (d) The rent charge shall be reserved in the vesting order, but the purchase annuity shall have priority over such rent-charge.

  (e) The Land Commission may, if satisfied with the security, make a further advance for the redemption of the rent charge in like manner as for the purchase of the holding.

  (f) Where a holding is sold under this section the powers conferred by the Land Purchase Acts and this Act for the apportionment of charges shall extend to an apportionment of charges between the purchase money and the rent charge, and the provisions of section fifteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, with respect to the acceptance by an incumbrancer of the purchase money in part discharge of his incumbrance shall apply as if the rent charge were other lands within the meaning of those provisions.

  LORD CASTLETOWNmoved at the end of the clause to insert:—
  "In all sales to tenants under this section unless otherwise provided in the vesting order, all easements, rights of shooting, fishing, and hunting, and royalties in or affecting the holding shall be deemed to be reserved to the landlord."
  The object of the clause was to permit the landowner to sell half the rent to the tenants and to retain a fee farm rent so to speak, and certain privileges. His Amendment was intended to safeguard the sporting rights over an estate in the case of the property being in the hands of a limited owner or where it was held by a minor or a lunatic. Unless the Amendment were adopted the heir in coming into possession might find himself in the position of a mere rent charger and that all his sporting rights had been

  69
  done away with. He did not think that that was the intention of the Government, and therefore he hoped that the noble Marquess would accept his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNsaid that he should support the Amendment which he thought would greatly improve the Bill. He could not see why these sporting rights should not under certain conditions be saved to the landowner. In Ireland sporting rights formed a very important part of the privileges of a landowner and they were also of value to the community. A large income was often derived from letting these sporting rights.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that it was the desire of the Government that this clause should be a success. He regarded it as one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and as offering a very hopeful solution of the purchase question. Owners would often be willing to sell to their tenants upon easy terms, provided a certain number of the attributes of ownership were reserved to them, and among those attributes the rights of sporting deserved an important place. The point had been provided for in Clause 30, but as that clause had been struck out, he would see that the object of the noble Lord was carried into effect. But if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted as it stood, the tenant might not know what be was purchasing, and therefore he thought that it would be better that the sporting rights or other rights which the landlord might desire to retain should be reserved by the contract of sale. ["Hear, hear!".]
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid that he could scarcely think that it was a very wise proceeding to leave it open for their rights to be disposed of in the case of minors and lunatics.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid that he hoped the noble Marquess would accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that in England there was a system of free warren, namely that people who were neither the owners nor the tenants had the power of exercising sporting rights over lands. He thought that in Ireland the precaution should be taken of preventing the tenant from transferring the sporting rights to some one else.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENcould not see the necessity for the Amendment. Under it the vendor could if he wished
  70
  part with his sporting rights. He thought they should adhere to the usual custom which was that when a property was sold all its rights went with it
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he desired to meet the cases of people who were either careless of the interest of the middleman, or—like minors or lunatics, unable to protect them. It should be remembered that under the clause the whole state would not be sold, only half the rent would be sold, and unless his Amendment were adopted the remainderman might be deprived of many amenities of the state which he would like to preserve.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD JAMES of HEREFORD)said that the Amendment would make the law in Ireland very different from the law in England. If a property were sold in England and no reservation was made of the sporting rights those rights would pass to the occupier. But the Amendment proposed that if the stipulation did not convey those rights they should not pass but should remain with the landlord. It was said that the object of the Amendment was to protect careless landlords. But surely all sales of this kind were taken under competent advice.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid that in many things the law in Ireland was different from the law in England. Many of the vendors would continue to live in Ireland and would therefore desire to retain the sporting rights.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that vendors had full power to do that under the clause.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he would not press the Amendment though he was still of opinion that it was a most reasonable one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3G,—

  TERMS OF REDEMPTION OF TITHE RENT-CHARGE IN CASE OF SALE.
  (1.) Where the Land Commission, in pursuance of Section fifteen of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, order the redemption of tithe rent-charge at a price not less than twenty times the

  71
  net amount of such tithe-rent charge, after making such deduction in respect of rates as is provided by Section seven of the Irish Church Act, 1869, Amendment Act, 1872, the consent of the Treasury shall not he required to such redemption.
  (2.) The foregoing enactment shall not apply to any annual sum payable to the Land Commission under Section thirty-two of the Irish Church Act, 1869, as amended by any other Act, but the Land Commission may order the redemption of such tithe-rent charge at a sum calculated on the basis of the annual sum being for a term of forty-five instead of fifty-two years.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 37,—

  SALE OF HOLDING BY LAND COMMISSION.
  (1.) The Land Commission upon the sale of a holding under Section thirty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or under any power of sale, may sell the holding in lots.
  (2.) Section fifteen of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, as Amended by this Act, shall extend to a sale of a holding by the Land Commission, as successors to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland.
  (3.) Where a holding is subject to the future payment of an annuity, and the Land Commission sell it in lots, or in the exercise of their powers under the Land Purchase Acts authorise the sub-division of the holding, the Land Commission may apportion the annuity in such manner as they deem expedient, or may, if they think fit, make an order discharging any such portion of the holding as aforesaid from any further liability for such annuity, or any part thereof, or any arrears thereof.
  (4.) Where the Land Commission sell a holding, the purchase money shall be paid and distributed as if it were the purchase money of a holding sold by a landlord to a tenant.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (4) after the word "shall" to insert the words "subject to the provisions of Section thirty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 38,—

  AMENDMENT OF 54 & 55 VICT. C. 33. S. 5 (2) (b) AS TO MONEY FOR LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  The power conferred on the Lord Lieutenant by Sub-section two of Section five of the Purchase of Land (Ireland Act, 1891, to make regulations
  72
  for the application of the moneys therein mentioned towards the cost of providing labourers' cottages is hereby extended to include a power to make regulations for the application of those moneys towards defraying any costs incurred at any time after the passing of the said Act of 1891 in providing such cottages.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 39,—

  SALES UNDER THE LANDED ESTATES COURT ACT.
  (1.) Where an absolute order for the sale of an estate comprising holdings to which this section applies, has been made under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, and either a receiver has been appointed over the estate or the estate is so circumstanced that it would independently of this Act be sold without the consent of the owner as to price, the following provisions shall have effect:—

  (a) The Land Commission shall, at the request of the Land Judge, cause the estate to be inspected, and a report to be made by two Commissioners respecting the estate, and the circumstances thereof, and the price at, and the conditions under which, the sale of the holdings to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts can properly he made.

  (b) The Land Judge, after giving all parties, including the tenants, an opportunity of being heard, and considering the report and any offers that may be made for the purchase of the estate or any part thereof, and any other matters that may be brought before him, and the general circumstances of the estate, shall make to the person appearing to be in occupation as tenant of each holding on the estate, an offer to sell to him the fee-simple of the holding, and the arrears of rent then due from him in respect thereof, at such price, and subject to such conditions, whether as to the payment of part of the price in cash, or as to the offer to one tenant being conditional on the acceptance by other tenants of the offers made to them within a limited time, or otherwise, as the Land Judge may consider reasonable and just, having regard to the interest of all persons interested in the estate,

  (c.) The offer shall be communicated in such manner as the Land Commission think fit, to the person appearing to be in occupation as tenant, and if it is accepted, then on fulfilment of the conditions the said person shall be deemed to have agreed to purchase the holding within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and the sale shall be completed accordingly.

  73

  (d.) If it appears to the Land Judge that the tenants of holdings on the estate to the extent of not less than three-fourths in number and value according to the rateable value under the Irish Valuation Acts, have accepted the offers under this section, he may, if having regard to the circumstances of the case he thinks it expedient, order that the remaining tenants or any of them shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and this section and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly; provided that such order shall not apply to any tenant if the purchase-money of his holding would exceed the limitation on the amount of the advance imposed by Section two of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, and the holding of such tenant shall not be taken into consideration in estimating the three-fourths above mentioned.

  (e.) Subject to the prescribed rules any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Judge made under this section, may apply to the Court of Appeal to re-hear the matter, and the matter shall be reheard accordingly.

  (f.) Where a receiver has been appointed over part of an estate this section shall apply to that part in like manner as if it were an estate.

  (g.) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply only to holdings which are agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.

  (2.) Any person in occupation of and paying rent for a parcel of land (including the owner of an estate in occupation of a mansion house or demesne forming part of the estate) held under a letting by the Land Judge or Receiver Judge, may agree to purchase such parcel of land, and the same shall be deemed a holding and such person a tenant, and the Land Judge or Receiver Judge, as the case may he, a landlord within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts.
  (3.) At any time after an absolute Order for the sale of an estate or part of an estate has been made in pursuance of the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, the foregoing provisions of this section so far as they are applicable, may upon the application of the owner be applied to such estate, although a receiver has not been appointed over the estate, and the estate is not so circumstanced that it would, independently of this Act, be sold without the consent of the owner as to price; provided that no advance shall be made to the owner to purchase any mansion house or demesne forming part of the estate.
  (4.) Rules under Part Two of this Act may be made for carrying into effect this section.
  *THE EARL OF ERNEsaid that in this clause the interests of landlords were hardly at all involved, for it only applied to estates which had absolutely passed
  74
  out of the hands of the landlords. But he objected to the clause in the interest of a largo number of second mortgagees—or puisne mortgagees, as they were called—such as shopkeepers, banks, and assurance companies—who derived incomes from charges on land in connection with estates in the Landed Estates Court, and the forced sales of those estates would place them at the mercy of the first mortgagees. He also objected to the clause on the ground that it would prevent the investment of money in Ireland. The return of a large Unionist majority at the last General Election had given rise to the hope, which unfortunately had proved to be baseless, that for five or six years at all events there would be a close time for landlords, mortgagees, and others who had the misfortune of being connected with land in Ireland, and in consequence a large amount of money was lent, on the security of Irish estates, either for the purpose of redeeming old charges or creating new ones. But, if the idea was once formed that money lent on the security of Irish land could be dealt with in the manner proposed by the clause, the flow of capital, which was badly wanted in Ireland, would be stopped. The clause would also interfere with purchase. Estates in the Landed Estates Court were badly circumstanced, and were tenanted by a poor class of agriculturists, and when tenants on the neighbouring well-to-do estates saw the properties in the Court going for 12 or 15 years' purchase they would be unwilling to offer any more for their own farms. Again, the clause contained the principle of compulsion, to which the minority of tenants proposed to bedealt with compulsorily under the clause might object, and with disastrous consequences. He submitted that the disadvantages of the clause outweighed the advantages, and therefore he moved his Amendment to omit Sub-section 1.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that, although many of his Friends were alarmed at the clause, he thought it a valuable provision. It was not a good thing that an enormous number of estates should be in the hands of the Court for an almost indefinite time. Everything depended on the discretion of the Land Judge for the time being,

  75
  and as it was a matter of discretion with him, unless they provided for it, there would he no power of having a rehearing or appeal on any question. No doubt the Judge might be depended upon to exercise his discretion wisely. But they did not know who the Land Judge might be a few years hence. He proposed to give the right of rehearing to any person aggrieved by the order of the Land Judge to the Court of Appeal. No court in Great Britain stood higher in public estimation than the Court of Appeal in Ireland. Everyone had confidence in it, and if the right of rehearing before it were given every one would be satisfied. He proposed to insert as a new sub-section:—
  "Subject to the prescribed rules, any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Judge made under this section may apply to the Court of Appeal to rehear the matter, and the matter shall be reheard accordingly."
  There would be great advantage in this right of rehearing. It was a tremendous responsibiltiy to place on the shoulders of one individual that he should decide, without anyone being able to correct him, if wrong, whether such an enormous area of property as was at present in the Land Court should be sold and at what price. Surely the Judge would exercise his discretion with greater confidence if he knew that anyone aggrieved would have the right of rehearing.
  *EARL SPENCERsaid he had a strong desire to see the clause, even if modified, pass. He entirely agreed as to the desirability of getting this enormous rental out of the hands of the receivers of the Landed Estates Court. He believed there was at the present moment as near as possible the same amount of rental under the receivers of the Landed Estates Court as there was in 1848 under the receivers of the Court of Chancery. The Encumbered Estates Court was introduced to get rid of that difficulty, and it seemed as great now as then. It was an exceedingly bad thing for the whole country that an enormous number of tenants of land of such great value should be under the influence of what was called "the dead hand" for it really came to that. There was the germ of compulsion in the clause, but it was different from the compulsion that would exist if compulsion were applied to the
  76
  purchase of estates all over Ireland. Under the clause the Judge could not proceed except in cases where the Judge had absolute power to make a sale now. There might be cases where hardship might exist, where owners were looking forward to the receipt of money to enable them to pay off their debts. But there must be few of them. Mortgagees would not suffer seriously. Their interests would come before the Judge as well as the interests of others concerned. He trusted that the Government would be able be carry this clause, for he believed it would do immense good in Ireland, and get rid of what was becoming a serious scandal—the enormous number of estates under the management of receivers.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the clause had been objected to mainly on the ground that its result would be to bring about forced sales at unduly low prices, and this was de-scribed as detrimental to the interests of incumbrancers, and particularly those of puisne mortgagees. He did not know on what ground the apprehension that the Land Judge would sanction sales of that description rested. He had been reading an interesting memorandum published by the Executive Committee of the Irish Landowners' Convention on the subject of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland, and he found in it the following expressions:—
  "It has been sometimes demanded that the Land Judges' Court should depart from the practice which has been followed for many years, and when petitions are filed for the sale the estate should in clue course be sold for whatever might be offered for it, whether the price offered seemed fair or not. Recent inquiries have satisfied us that no such practice or policy was ever adopted in the Incumbered Estates Court. On the contrary, the Commissioners appear to have always shown scrupulous regard to the wishes of the incumbrancers. Some estates were certainly sold at low prices, but this was at the instance of incumbrancers and not in pursuance of any such policy on the part of the Court."
  They mentioned the case of—
  "the able and distinguished Judge who presided over the Court, and recognised that in most case the mortgagees abstained from pressing their sales at low prices, and the Judge sometimes exercised his authority to prevent an estate being sacrificed when the individual incumbrancer appeared inclined to force a sale regardless of the interest of the chargers"

  77
  Why should it be supposed that the action of the Court would be so entirely different from what it had been in past years? The Judge had up to the present time exercised his authority in order to prevent estates being sacrificed. Why should they suppose that in future he would avail himself of that authority in order to promote the sacrifice of estates? He found nothing in this clause to suggest that anything of the kind was intended. On the contrary, in every line of it there appeared Jain indications that it was the intention of the framers of the clause to guard against sales at ruinously low prices. The Land Judge was expressly directed to give ail parties an opportunity of being heard. He had to consider the Report made to him by the Land Commission and any other offers that might be made by persons contemplating the purchase of the property; and he had also to consider any other matters brought before him, together with the general circumstances of the, estate. It seemed to him highly improbable, under these circumstances, that the Judge would exercise his discretion in a manner unfair to the persons interested in these estates. The danger seemed to him, if there was one, to be not a great danger. ["Hear, hear!"] Upon the other hand, it was highly desirable on public grounds that these estates should not be allowed to remain for an indefinite time in the hands of the Landed Estates Court. Estates representing a rental of about £600,000 were at the present time in the management of that Court, and he thought the time had come when they should attempt to put an end to the state of things by facilitating sales on fair and reasonable terms to the tenants in occupation of these properties. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government desired to take every possible precaution in order to guard against sales which could be possibly regarded as unfair. Lord Macnaghten had put into his hands an Amendment in the form of a new sub-section providing that any person aggrieved by any Order of the Land Judge made under this section might apply to the Court of Appeal to re-hear the matter, which should be re-heard accordingly. That seemed to the Government a serious matter, and although he should have been disposed to agree to a suggestion
  78
  that there might be an appeal to the Land Judge himself to re-hear the matter, who might, if he thought fit, so re-hear it, he was not able to consent to the proposal that in all these cases there should be an unrestricted appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREmentioned that there had been some sales by a Land Judge which had given rise to a considerable amount of alarm, and that was why he should support Lord Macnaghten's Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ERNEwithdrew his Amendment in order that that of Lord Macnaughten might be submitted.
  LORD MACNAGHTENintimated that he should press his Amendment to a Division. He thought it was a most important thing for a Judge who was exercising this discretion to know that he was not himself the ultimate Court. He accordingly moved to insert the following new sub-section:—
  (e.) Subject to the prescribed rules, any person aggrieved by any Order of the Land Judge made under this section, may apply to the Court of Appeal to re-hear the matter, and the matter shall be re-heard accordingly."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDdid not think the proposal of his noble and learned Friend would be a practicable proposal. If their Lordships would read the entire section they would see that it dealt with a question largely of administration and discretion. To have an appeal on such matters would break down the clause and render it unworkable. There would be appeals in cases where parties might desire to tie up the administration of the section, and this would lead to inconvenience and delay, which they were anxious to avoid. ["Hear, hear!"] They were not legal questions or difficulties which would come into dispute, but topics of administration and discretion which were entirely foreign to the questions that came before the Court of Appeal. The appeals that came before that Court concerned questions of law, but the matters that would come before the Land Judge were not questions of law. They were questions of intelligence, of good sense, and of administrative capacity. He hoped, under these circumstances, the Amendment would not be pressed.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he certainly pressed the Amendment, which, he considered, would make the clause more workable, remove a blot from it, and enable the Judge to act with much greater freedom. What the Land Judge would have to decide on the papers and the report before him was whether, having regard to the interests of all parties, the sale ought to be made upon the terms imposed, and that was a question of law.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDcould not help asking his noble and learned Friend to consider whether he knew of any instance where a learned Judge had confided to him discretionary powers under which he had to administer estates, as in the Court of Chancery, in which there ever was any appeal. Surely it was not a matter of law, and it was contrary to precedent that where a Judge had discretionary powers to do the best he could for all parties there should be an appeal to review his action.
  LORD MACNACHTEN: I know of no case where such a tremendous responsibility and such tremendous discretion is vested in one individual. I think it is an exceptional case, and it requires an exceptional provision to meet it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  The House divided on the question that the sub-section be here inserted:—

  CONTENTS

  61

  NOT-CONTENTS

  46

  DIVISION LIST.—CONTENTS.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Annaly, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Annesley, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V Midleton.)

  Bandon, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Carew, L.

  Caledon, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Camperdown, E.

  de Montalt, E.

  Castletown, L. [TELLER.]

  Ferrers, E.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Kilmorey, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Mayo, E. [TELLER.]

  Clonbrock, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Crofton, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Verulam, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Winchilsea and

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

  Nottingham, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Dunalley, L

  80

  Dunleath, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Rossmore, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Macnaghten, L.

  Massy, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conynyham.)

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Tollemache, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Ormonde, E. (M. Ormonde.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (S Chancellor.)

  Ampthill L.,

  Ashbourne, L

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Balfour, E.

  Belper, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Churchill, L [TELLER.]

  Crawshaw, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Emly, L.

  Glenesk, L.

  Harris, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Iveagh, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  James, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Kenry, E. (E. Dunraven ami Mount Earl)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Carnwath, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Crewe, E.

  Dudley, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Romney, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Stanmore, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Teynham, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Zouche of Harynworth, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  LORD MONTEAGLEasked the noble Marquess whether Paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) was intended to exclude the villages on the property sold in this way? It appeared to him rather hard that, where they were forcing a man to sell his property, they should exclude the villages altogether. He did not know whose property they would be. They might be in the hands, perhaps, of some bankrupt owner, or a receiver of a court 100 miles away, and there would be no one to look after them. He thought a very deplorable state of things might arise, and he would ask the Government whether some means might not be devised for dealing with these villages?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he was afraid he must confine the operation of the clause to lands coming within the description of Paragraph (b). If they were to extend it to towns they would be introducing altogether a new element.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 40,—

  APPEALS UNDER LAND PURCHASE ACT.
  Any person aggrieved by the order of a Land Commissioner acting alone in carrying the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act into effect, may, if such Commissioner was not a Judicial Commissioner and the question is one of law, require the ease to be reheard by a Judicial Commissioner, and in any other case may require the question to be reconsidered by a Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners, one of whom shall be a Commissioner appointed under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, except where, owing to unavoidable absence, illness, or a vacancy in office, such a Commissioner is not available: provided that if the Judicial Commissioner thinks it desirable the case shall be re-heard by those three Commissioners.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 41,—

  POWERS OF MORTGAGEE.
  A mortgagee with power of sale shall for all the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts be deemed to be a landlord.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved after the word "mortgagee" to insert the words "in possession."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PART IV.
  Clause 42,—

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.—PURCHASR AND SALE BY CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD UNDER THE LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  (1.) Where the Congested Districts Board have agreed to purchase land, whether in a congested districts county or elsewhere, the Land Commission, on a request from the Board stating the congested districts county for the benefit of
  82
  which the land is purchased, and the amount of the purchase money, shall subject as in this section mentioned advance, the purchase money to the Board in like manner as if the Board were a tenant purchasing his holding under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act.
  (2.) The advance shall not be made, if it exceeds, or together with any previous advance on account of the county for the benefit of which the land is purchased not repaid or written off will exceed, twenty-five times the share of the county in the interest on the church surplus grant (referred to in Section thirty-five of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891), after deducting from that share any prior charges, whether under this section or otherwise, including such proportion of contingent charges under Part Two of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1801, as the Treasury may fix.
  (3) The advance shall be repaid by the Board by an annuity of the same amount, and involving the same interest and sum for repayment of capital as if it were an annuity payable by a tenant purchasing his holding, and the amount of such annuity shall be deducted by the Land Commission from the interest on the church surplus grant.
  (4) Where the Land Commission make an advance to a tenant for the purchase of his holding from the Congested Districts Board, the amount of the advance shall be written off the debt due from the Board for advances made to them on account of the congested districts county for the benefit of which the Board purchased the land, in such manner as may be arranged between the Land Commission and the Board, and shall be treated as the redemption of a proportionate part of the annuities payable by the Board to the Land Commission.
  (5) Where land is purchased by the Congested Districts Board for the benefit of more than one congested districts county, the Board shall state in their request to the Land Commission the proportion of the purchase money which is to be treated as being advanced for the benefit of each county.
  (6) The Land Commission shall not make any advance in respect of any purchase by a tenant from the Board of a small holding, as defined in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891.
  (7) The Congested Districts Board shall not buy any land held under a lease for a term of years of which less than sixty are unexpired at the time of the sale, unless they hold or buy the reversion expectant upon the determination of such lease.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 43,—

  SALES BY CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD OF SMALL HOLDINGS OTHERWISE THAN UNDER LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  (1) The Congested Districts Board may sell land to a tenant of a small holding for the price

  83
  agreed upon, and credit the purchaser with the whole or any part of the purchase money, and such purchase money shall he secured to the satisfaction of the Board, and be payable by such annuity, payable half-yearly, and calculated at such rate of interest as may be agreed on.
  (2) For carrying such sale into effect the Trustees of the Congested Districts Board may convey the land to the purchaser charged with the said annuity; but the conveyance shall not operate to convert the interest of the purchaser in the holding into real estate.
  (3) The particulars of any such conveyance may be communicated to the Land Commission, and thereafter they shall issue half-yearly applications for payment of the half-yearly instalments of the annuity charged on the holding, and shall credit or pay to the Congested Districts Board all sums received by the Commission in respect thereof, and shall furnish to the Board particulars of all instalments for which they issue applications under this section, showing which have and which have not been paid.
  (4.) The Trustees of the Congested Districts Board shall have for the recovery of any such instalments unpaid the same remedies as the Land Commission have for the recovery of unpaid instalments of an annuity under the Land Purchase Acts.
  (5.) Holdings purchased under this section, while subject to any annuity for the payment of purchase money, shall not be subject to the provisions of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, but shall be subject to all the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts respecting a holding subject to an annuity under those Acts; and the power under those provisions to require a holding to be sold when subdivided by reason of the death of the proprietor may be exercised within twelve months after the subdivision becomes known to the Congested Districts Board, notwithstanding that it is more than twelve months after the death.
  (6.) Whenever, upon the amalgamation of small holdings, part of the amalgamated holding is subject to an annuity under this section, and the amalgamated holding is not a small holding, the Congested Districts Board may agree with the occupier of such amalgamated holding for the purchase by him of that holding under the Land Purchase Acts, and the Land Commission may sanction the agreement and make an advance as if such occupier was in occupation of the whole of such holding under a contract of tenancy.
  (7.) On such last-mentioned advance being made by the Land Commission, the balance of the principal of the purchase money payable by the annuity under this section shall be treated as repaid to the Board out of the advance, and the purchaser and the holding shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the said annuity.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 44,—

  RULES FOR PART OF ACT.
  Rules for carrying into effect this Part of this Act may be made by the Lord Lieutenant after communication with the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PART V.
  Clause 45,—

  EVICTED TENANTS—RE-ENACTMENT WITH MODIFICATIONS OF 54 & 55 VICT. C. 48 s. 13.
  Section thirteen of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, is hereby re-enacted, and shall have effect with the modification following: Twelve months of the commencement of this Act shall be substituted for six months of the passing of this Act.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 46,—

  APPLICATION OF LAND COMMISSION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF TENANT FOR PURCHASE OF HOLDING.
  (1.) Where the tenancy of a holding has been determined at any time after the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, the landlord or the former tenant of the holding, or both jointly may, within twelve months of the commencement of this Act, apply in the prescribed manner to the Land Commission to act as mediators with a view to the reinstatement of the tenant in the holding or with a view to the purchase of the holding by the tenant.
  (2.) Upon any such joint application with a view to reinstatement, the Land Commission may declare the terms and conditions as to rent, and the payment of arrears or otherwise upon which they consider it would be reasonable that the former tenant should be reinstated in the holding, and upon the parties consenting within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, may make an order reinstating the tenant in his holding upon the said terms and conditions.
  (3.) Upon any such joint application with a view to the sale of the holding, the Land Commission may declare the amount of the advance which they are prepared to sanction, and the conditions (if any) to be fulfilled previously to the making of such advance, and upon the parties consenting within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, may order an advance, subject to the said conditions in like manner as if an agreement had been made under Section thirteen of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891 as re-enacted by this Act.

  85
  (4.) Upon such application, whether for reinstatement or for a sale being made by either the landlord or the former tenant of the holding, the Land Commission may, if they think fit after making such inquiry as they think advisable, serve in the prescribed manner upon the party not having made the application, a notice calling on him to state whether he consents to the application being treated as a joint application, and if the party so served does not within the prescribed time after such service object, a joint application within the meaning of the section shall be deemed to have been made for reinstatement or for a sale, as the case may be, and the Land Commission may thereupon proceed under this section accordingly.
  (5.) Every order under this Section shall be binding upon all persons, and be final and conclusive.
  (6.) An order under this section shall not be made in the case of a holding which, on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, was in the occupation of a tenant.
  (7.) For the purposes of this section, the expression "former tenant" shall include the personal representative of the former tenant.
  THE EARL OF ARRANmoved to omit the following words from Subsection (4)—
  "and if the party so served does not within the prescribed time after such service object, a joint application within the meaning of the section shall be deemed to have been made for reinstatement or for a sale, as the case may be, and the Land Commission may thereupon proceed under this section accordingly,"
  and to insert instead thereof the following words:—

  (a) If he consents within the prescribed time the Land Commission may proceed under this Section in like manner as if the application was a joint application, but

  (b) If he does not so consent no further proceedings shall be taken.

  His object, his Lordship said, was simply to restore the clause to the form in which it stood when the Bill was originally introduced. Under the clause as at pre sent worded every tenant who had been evicted since 1879 would doubtless be advised by his lawyer to serve his notice on the landlord to be reinstated. As the Bill originally stood it made the positive consent of the landlord necessary, whereas now the consent was to be deemed to exist. He did not see what damage there would be to the tenant if he was obliged to have a consent in writing. It was not prescribed, either, that notice should be given to the land-
  86
  lord's agent when he was the person whose consent was to be asked.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the clause was originally introduced in another place in the shape in which his noble Friend wished now to put it, but, he was told, by consent the present form was adopted, and he should be very sorry to alter it. There was a good deal to be said for the proposal that in cases of this kind acquiescence should be sufficient without requiring active consent.
  THE EARL OF ARRANwas afraid that the present clause would open the door to much abuse. An owner might be away and his dissent might arise too late in consequence. It would, in such a case, be very unfair to oblige him to reinstate a tenant whom he had no intention of receiving at all.
  LORD ASHBOURNEpointed out that the owner must be served "in the prescribed manner." and the Land Commission would take care that the service was in such a way as would be effective and proper.
  THE EARL OF ARRANsaid he did not quite see how that met the case, because if no answer was obliged to be received from the owner and the consent was only implied, the door was opened to a great deal of abuse.
  Amendment negatived.

  PART VI.
  Clause 47,—

  SUPPLEMENTAL.—DEFINITIONS.
  (1.) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "dwelling-house" includes any out-house, curtilage, and garden appurtenant thereto.
  The expressions "landlord" and "tenant" include respectively the predecessors in title of a landlord or tenant.
  The expression "limited owner" means a limited owner within the meaning of Section twenty-six of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and includes any person having the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890.
  The expression "lease" includes an agreement for a lease.
  The expression "Land Law Acts" means the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, except Part V. thereof, the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, except Part IL, and the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1888, and the Timber (Ireland) Act, 1888,

  87
  and the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1888, Amendment Act, 1889, and the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891, and does not include the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, except so far as the provisions of it are necessary for giving effect to the above-mentioned portion of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.
  The expression "Land Purchase Acts" means the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Land Purchase Acts as therein defined, and the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891.
  The expression "permanent building" shall include permanent structures and sea and river embankments having a permanent character.
  The expression "judicial rent" means a fair rent, whether fixed by the Court or by agreement or arbitration, or by demand of the landlord accepted by the tenant, and any reference to an application to fix a fair rent shall include a reference to an agreement to fix a fair rent or to refer to arbitration the fixing of a fair rent, or to the demand of an increased rent by the landlord.
  The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Land Commission, save that, where the expression refers to financial matters, it shall mean prescribed by rules made by the Treasury and where the expression relates to matters connected with the Land Judge, it shall mean prescribed by rules made under Part Two of this Act.
  The expression "Receiver Judge" means the Judge assigned under Section nineteen of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, for the execution of the duties in that section mentioned,
  (2.) In the definition of "holding" contained in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, "parcel of land" shall he deemed to include an undivided share of land, whether held alone or held under the same contract of tenancy with land held in severalty.
  (3.) Any jurisdiction vested by this Act in the High Court in relation to the purchase money under the Land Purchase Acts, or otherwise in relation to those Acts, shall, subject to rules of court, be exercised by the Land Judge.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (3) to leave out the word "the" (" the Land Judge ") and to insert instead thereof the word "a."
  Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 48,—

  SAVING OF ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT CUSTOM.
  Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect any right, benefit, or presumption exercised or enjoyed under or by virtue of the Ulster tenant-right custom, or any usage corresponding thereto.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 49,—

  APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARTS OF ACT.
  (1.) Part One of this Act shall, save as is by this Act expressly provided, apply to every proceeding pending at the commencement of this Act.
  (2.) An application to fix a fair rent for a holding shall not be refused on the ground of any previous decision with reference to the holding or any part thereof, whether between the same parties or otherwise, if such application can he sustained under this Act or any of the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act, and where such application can be so sustained, the holding shall be deemed to be and to have remained a present tenancy as from the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.
  (3.) Parts One and Two of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Law Acts, and together with those Acts may be cited as the Land Law Acts, and shall apply to all holdings to which the Land Law Acts, or any of them, as amended by this Act, apply, and Section twenty-two of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall apply as if the said Acts and parts of this Act were part of the foregoing provisions of the said Act of 1881, within the meaning of the said section.
  (4.) Parts Two, Three and Five of this Act shall he construed as one with the Land Purchase Acts as herein defined, and together with those Acts may be cited as the Land Purchase Acts.
  (5.) Part Four of this Act shall be construed as one with the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as defined in the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1894, and together with those Acts may be cited collectively as the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the following as a new Subsection:—
  "(2.) The provisions of this Act with respect to a vesting order shall not apply to proceedings in respect of an advance sanctioned before the commencement of this Act, or of any agreement for the purchase of a term of years made before the commencement of this Act, and the enactments relative to such proceedings shall continue to apply notwithstanding their repeal by this Act,"
  Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 50,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 51,—

  REPEAL OF ACTS.
  The Acts specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNmoved to insert the following new clause:—
  "The present system of appointing Court valuers from amongst the land Sub-Commissioners shall cease, and in future the Court valuers shall be permanent officials of the Crown, and be independent of the Land Commission."
  He said he did not propose to trouble their Lordships with a detailed statement of the many facts which would support him in asking the Government to include this clause in the Bill, but he felt that he dealt with such an important and grave question that he by no means abandoned his right to deal with the matter again at some future time. He asked the Government whether they would, between now and the Report Stage, consider whether they could meet the case in some degree, because it was a very strong case indeed. They had now Sub-Commissioners acting as valuers, and valuers acting as sub-Commissioners, and therefore they wore revising each other's rents at very short intervals. That was a process winch could not commend itself to any section of the people in Great Britain. He ventured to think that such a moderate suggestion as his must commend itself to the conciliatory attitude of the Government, and if they would only assure him that the mattter should be considered, he would have very great pleasure in not pressing the clause now.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEthought the noble Lord was well advised in not pressing the clause, because, obviously, in its present shape it could not be incorporated in the Bill. The noble Lord suggested that they should consider the question and deal with it on Report. They could not possibly undertake to bring up new clauses or to facilitate the introduction of new clauses dealing with such questions as this dealt with on Report.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid the question involved in the proposed clause was
  90
  a most important one. Land was the great commodity in Ireland, and, therefore, as valuers of land the best men should be secured. The noble Lord simply asked that the Court Valuers, who were practically the last resort the landlord or tenant had when he wished to obtain an efficient and sound valuation, should be absolutely independent of outside pressure—that they should, in point of fact, be servants of the State; that they should be men of unimpeachable character, who possessed a thorough knowledge of their business. He hoped the noble Marquess would reconsider his decision.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAtrusted the Government would consent to that portion of the clause which proposed to enact that the Sub-Commissioners should not be appointed Court Valuers. It was not reasonable that a man should be a Sub-Commissioner in one case and a Valuer in another case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: He is not.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid that if that was so a great deal of the case of his noble Friend was destroyed.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNremarked that he could lay upon the Table a list of men who had acted as Valuers and Sub-Commissioners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: At the same time?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Not at the same time.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDENunderstood that all that was asked was that the Court Valuers should be men above suspicion. Surely that was as much to the advantage of the tenant as the landlord.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid no one denied the necessity of having upright and efficient Court Valuers. To recognise that fact was one thing, but to accept this clause was quite another thing. The clause would create a new class of permanent officiais, and, therefore, it could not be accepted without great consideration.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the noble Lord suggested that the Court Valuers should necessarily be independent of the Land Commission. The Valuers were officers of the Land Commission, and surely there was nothing wrong in being dependent upon the Commission.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEApointed out that what his noble Friend objected to was the system of appointing Court Valuers from amongst the Sub-Commissioners.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEasked what was the objection to a gentleman acting as a Court Valuer and a Sub-Commissioner, provided he did not in any case act in the two capacities.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My objection is that a Sub-Commissioner always cuts down rents, and I do not think that is a fair man. [A laugh.]
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNhad the following clause on the Paper, but said he would not move it:—
  "After the passing of this Act every landlord and tenant to whom this Act applies shall have liberty, after the rehearing of their case by the Chief Commissioners, to appeal on the question of 'value' without a case having been stated to a court consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court, assisted by the head for the time being of the Government Valuation Department as assessor."
  LORD CASTLETOWNmoved to insert the following clause:—
  "When, upon the hearing of an application to fix a fair rent, the court is of opinion that the tenant of a holding has wilfully or through neglect caused the said holding to become deteriorated, the court shall thereupon dismiss the said application."
  He said that was a corollary on what was accepted by the Government on the previous day when it was agreed to insert after "condition" in Clause 1, the words "as to cultivation, deterioration, or otherwise."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwas not prepared to accept the Amendment, which went very far indeed. It seemed to him they had done all that was necessary in directing the Court to take into consideration the condition of the holding. He did not see how they would justify the proposal that the Court should absolutely dismiss an application simply because it found the holding had been improperly farmed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported to the House; Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; Standing Order No. XXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 238.]
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: When will the Report be taken?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: On Monday.
  *EARL SPENCER: And the other stages?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think it would be hardly fair to press your Lordships to take the Third Reading on Monday, but in case that should be your Lordships' pleasure when the time comes, I will now give notice that I shall move to suspend the Standing Orders on Monday. I shall, of course, be in the hands of the House to make such arrangements as will suit your Lordships' convenience.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  TRUCK BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Ten o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.