Sitting of 10 August 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, by Order, and agreed to.

BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN DRAINAGE BILL.
Lords Amendments, by Order, considered.
Clause 5 (recited action to be stayed and costs thereof paid),—
MR. T. M. HEALYprotested against a proposal to sanction the payment by the Commissioners to Mr. North of a sum of £500 out of the rates on account of damage done to the latter by reason of certain works carried out by the Commissioners. The hon. Member contended that Parliament ought never to have suspended the Standing Orders in order to allow a body of Commissioners who had committed an act of

367
lawlessness to make good the damage they had done out of the unfortunate ratepayers.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 (borrowing powers),—
On an Amendment, sanctioning additional borrowing powers to the extent of £10,000,
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. The Bill was brought in to legalise certain works which were illegal, and in consequence of the illegality of which an action was brought against the Board. The Bill was a late Bill, and the Standing Orders were all suspended in order that the Bill might progress through the House. When the Bill first came into that House it only proposed to borrow £12,000. During the course of its passage through the House that sum of £12,000 was increased by £8,000 to £20,000, and, in addition to that, another clause was inserted allowing further borrowing powers, not exceeding £10,000 for a particular purpose—namely, clearing away any damage which might arise in consequence of sewage getting into Kingstown Harbour. He ought to say that the Bill in that House was an unopposed Bill. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "By a fluke."] When the Bill reached the other House it was an opposed Measure, and there the matter was threshed out before a Committee of the other House, and this clause, allowing another £10,000 to be borrowed with the sanction of the Local Government Board in Ireland, was inserted. That was the proposal which he was now asking the House to disagree with on this broad ground:—Here was a Bill which came before the House late, in very exceptional circumstances; it started with the proposal to borrow £12,000, which was subsequently increased to £20,000, then to £30,000, and finally to £40,000. This was a very large increase to incorporate in a Bill during the course of its passage through the House. The proper course would have been for the local board to make up their minds how much money was wanted, to have allowed a margin for
368
expenses, and then to have submitted a properly-formulated scheme to the House. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow an increase of the powers of borrowing as had been the case here. The case of the promoters was practically to this effect—they did not wish to come to the House next year in order to seek further borrowing powers in respect of any additional works which might be necessary, and they thought that it would be sufficient if powers were taken to borrow with the consent of the Local Government Board in Ireland. But he found himself unable to take that view. If further sums had to be spent the proper course would be for the Drainage Board to give full and proper notice to the ratepayers of the district, and, if necessity compelled them to come to the House, they would have to come. This local authority had enjoyed a great deal more rope than any English board would have received in similar circumstances, and therefore he asked the House to disagree with the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the vigilance he had shown in this matter. The incident showed how unprotected the Irish ratepayers were in regard to private Bills. When this Bill first came forward the Irish Members made a protest against it even on the ground of the £12,000, but there was no time to consider the petition, because the Standing Orders Committee had suspended the Standing Orders. The Drainage Commissioners had made such a mess of this business that the whole foreshore at Kingstown was practically reeking in sewage, and it was a choice whether the people should have typhoid or higher taxes. A petition was lodged against the Bill in the House of Lords, but the House of Lords turned round and said, "You are only ratepayers of Blackrock, and you are represented by Kingstown and Blackrock Local Board, who have petitioned against this Bill." But the Board actually withdrew their petitions, so that the Bill went through the House without a petition against it. It was an appalling thing that the House of Lords Standing Committee had been misled by a bogus petition, which was first lodged and then withdrawn for the purpose of defeating the rights of the ordinary ratepayers of the community. Indeed,

369
everything connected with this Bill had been bungled and badly managed. All the deviations and diversions of work of admitted illegality had been done in the interests of two peers, Lord de Vesci and Lord Longford, in order to benefit their property. Those two noble Lords ought to be made to pay for the whole affair. This Bill would probably end in another Bill, and probably in a fourth Bill.
Lords' Amendment disagreed with.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSmoved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment to the effect that all the costs, charges and expenses incidental to the passing of the Act, "including the costs, charges and expenses of the Earl of Longford and Viscount de Vesci in opposing the Bill," should be paid out of the money to be borrowed by the Board, or which it is entitled to receive from the Kingstown and Blackrock townships. He said that those two noble Lords had a petition in the other House, but they were not, strictly speaking, opponents of the Bill. Counsel held a watching brief for the petitioners, but they were in favour of the Bill and were anxious to see it go through with certain Amendments. One of the Amendments they proposed was the clause which the House had disagreed with, and it seemed to him that there was no reason why they should get their costs out of the ratepayers.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was sorry that the House could not ask these two noble Lords to pay for the whole thing. The proposal that these two noble Lords, who were the cause of this cost to the ratepayers by persuading the Drainage Board to divert the works in the interest of their property, should get their costs, was certainly a charming illustration of the objects of the House of Lords.
Lords' Amendment disagreed with.
MR. T. M. HEALYmoved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment giving authority to the "President of the Institution of Civil Engineers in London," instead of the Chairman of the Board of Works, to appoint some person in place
370
of Mr. Roberts, C.E., to determine and award the proportion of expenses to be borne by the townships, in the event of Mr. Roberts dying or becoming disabled from discharging his duty. They had enough of London already, and he did not see why they should agree to this proposal that the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers in London should be the determining authority in this matter.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that this was, after all, a trifling matter, and therefore he should not oppose the Motion of the hon. Member.
Lords' Amendment disagreed with.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the Commons' disagreement with certain of the Lords' Amendments.

QUESTIONS.

  CUSTOMS (LANDING AND SHIPPING BRANCH).
  SIR JOHN STIRLING MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will report what progress has been made by the Departmental Committee on the hours of labour in the landing and shipping branch of the Customs Department; and, whether he can stale when it is probable that the finding of the said Committee will be made known to the officials interested?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): A Customs Departmental Committee, not on the general question of hours of labour, but on overtime arrangements, rates of pay, etc., was appointed some time since, and to this Committee were referred certain questions relating to the landing and shipping duties. The Committee has reported, and its recommendations on all the matters referred to it are now being considered by the Board of Customs, whose decisions upon them will be made known to the officers concerned as soon as practicable.

  CHURCHYARD EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) whether he is aware that certain Parish Council auditors in Scotland have disallowed expenditure on churchyards where a formal deed of conveyance from the heritors to a Parish Council has not been executed; (2) whether the auditors in so disallowing are acting under the direction of the Local Government Board for Scotland; and (3) whether the written consent of the heritors would not be a sufficient compliance with the law?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): No expenditure on churchyards has been disallowed in the present audit. In two or three instances the auditor has called the attention of the Local Government Board to the fact that expenditure has been incurred on churchyards, to which the Parish Council possessed no title. The auditors and Parish Councils have been informed that the poor-rate cannot competently be applied to meet such expenses, unless the minute of a regularly convened meeting of the heritors transferring the churchyard (or old burial ground) be obtained by the Parish Council. In a case in which there was only one heritor in the parish, the Parish Council were informed that they must at least obtain a letter from the heritor transferring the churchyard to them.
  In answer to a further Question,
  *THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the advice of the Local Government Board for Scotland was that there ought to be a regular minute. They did not say a conveyance, but a minute.

  WORKHOUSE SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he can state in how many Poor Law Unions in Ireland during the past two years have the Guardians increased the salaries of the teachers in workhouse schools, which increments the Local Government Board has declined to sanction; (2) are these teachers totally excluded from the advantageous provisions of the Education Act of 1892,
  372
  while in regard to examination, classification, method, and discipline of their schools, they are fully bound by the rules and regulations of the Commissioners of National Education; and (3) can he hold out any hope that the Local Government Board will not refuse to sanction the increase of salaries recommended by the Boards of Guardians?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The answer to the first paragraph is eight. Eleven proposals to increase the salaries of these officers were sanctioned in the same period. Teachers in workhouse schools are excluded from the provisions of the Education Act of 1892, though it is to be observed that these teachers, in addition to their salaries, receive rations, apartments, firing, light, etc. They are not fully bound by the rules and regulations of the Commissioners of National Education, but are under the control of Boards of Guardians and of the Local Government Board. No undertaking can be given such as is suggested in the last paragraph; every proposal to increase or reduce the salary of a workhouse teacher will, as heretofore, be considered on its own merits.

  COVENT GARDEN THEATRICAL FUND.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that benefit societies are required by law to furnish annual returns of their membership and accumulated funds, will he state whether the Covent Garden Theatre; Fund, which is held by the Charity Commissioners to be a benefit society and, therefore, exempt from their jurisdiction, has furnished any such returns during recent years; and, if so, whether he can state, from the latest returns thus furnished, the total amount to the credit of the fund, and the number of surviving members who are entitled to participate in its advantages?
  MR. HANBURY: This fund was established by a private Act of 1776, which shows that the fund consisted of the voluntary contributions of the actors. The Charity Commissions Act of 1853 excludes such charities from their control. The society is not registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, and, therefore, does not make any returns to the

  373
  Friendly Societies Registry, nor is there any power to compel it to do so. I am, therefore, unable to obtain the information desired by the hon. Member.

  POSTAL DELIVERY (KILDONAN, SUTHERLANDSHIRE).
  MR. McLEOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been received from the Parish Council of Kildonan, Sutherland-shire, praying for an improvement in the postal delivery in that parish, and stating that some 80 families are totally unprovided for by a postal delivery of any kind, except by the goodwill of their neighbours, and that there has been no improvement in the postal service of this district for 30 years; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to have the delivery improved?
  MR. HANBURY: The memorial referred to by the hon. Member has been very recently received, and is now under inquiry. A reply shall be forwarded to him as soon as a report has been received and a decision arrived at.

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. J. L. CAREW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, inasmuch as it has been positively stated to the Chambers of Commerce by qualified experts that the Post Office Department will not find any practical difficulty in acceding to the request of the deputation which recently waited on the Postmaster General, viz., that the full two hours provided by the accelerated service shall be given to Ireland, he will undertake that the proposed time-table of the Post Office shall not be decided on till next Session, so as to allow the views of the Chambers of Commerce to be more fully investigated by the Department?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the statements alleged to have been made by qualified experts to the Chambers of Commerce; but if the Chambers of Commerce consider them of importance it is hoped they will communicate them to him, which they have not hitherto done. In reference to the latter part of the
  374
  Question, he must repeat that, as was stated in reply to a similar question on Friday, 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.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, at the interview which the Chambers of Commerce had with the Postmaster General, these representations were made; was there a shorthand writer present at the interview, or is there any means of ascertaining what was said by the Postmaster General and what was said on behalf of the deputation?
  MR. HANBURY: I was not at the deputation, so I do not know whether there was a shorthand writer present, but the Postmaster General denies that he has the information mentioned.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scotch mails, which have been made the pretext for this arrangement, are brought by very slow trains?
  MR. HANBURY: I will inquire as to that, but I may say that one other difficulty is connected with the junction of the trains, I think, at Crewe. As regards the night down mails, it would be necessary to put on a special train, because the night mails are carried by the Scotch mail train.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as Secretary to the Treasury and not as representing the Postmaster General, if he will see that we get value for our money?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that a short postponement would be quite difficult for the consideration of this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: I will convey that suggestion to the Postmaster General, and see whether it can be carried out.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Kerry (Sir THOMAS ESMONDE), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when the Resolution confirming the new contracts for the conveyance of mails between London and Dublin will be brought before the House; what is the duration

  375
  of the proposed new contracts; whether an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the question on the Appropriation Bill; and, whether, in view of the strong feeling in Ireland on the matter, he will defer the definite settlement of the mail time-table until next Session, so as to allow time for investigation as to how far it is possible to meet the wishes of the Irish public in this respect?
  MR. HANBURY: The new contract for the conveyance of mails between Holyhead and Kingstown has already been approved by the House by Resolution, on. July 4th, 1895. The contract is to remain in force for 20 years from April 1st next. Railway contracts are not, as sea contracts are, approved by Resolution of the House. The agreement with the London and North-Western Railway Company for the acceleration of the Irish night mail trains is supplemental to the contract of 1883, and the whole arrangement can be terminated at 12 months' notice by either side. It will not be possible, as explained to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on Friday last, to defer the settlement of the time-table for the new service between London and Dublin until next Session without postponing for the Irish provinces the advantages of the acceleration.

  FREE EDUCATION (SOUTHPORT).
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with respect to the fact that a large number of applications have been made to the Education Department by parents at Southport for free education for their children, which were sent by the Department to the Attendance Committee of the Corporation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the names of the applicants were genuine, and how many free places were available in the public elementary schools, and to the reply of the town clerk that the applications were genuine, but that the managers of the elementary schools refused to state what free places they had, whether, seeing that the parents have done all that the law requires them to do in this matter, what steps are the Department taking to meet as rapidly as possible the demands of the parents?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): On 1st August, the Committee of Council wrote to the town clerk, requesting certain information regarding the applications for free places; but no reply has been received. The managers of the Church of England schools have undertaken to provide free places for all applicants at schools within a reasonable distance of their homes.

  QUEENSLAND.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the disappointment and dissatisfaction with which his reply to the memorial from the Members for the Central Division of Queensland, praying for the erection of that district into a distinct self-governing Colony, has been locally received, he will reconsider the question during the Recess; whether he is aware that there is no precedent for an Australian Colony consenting, through its Parliament, to its own subdivision, the intervention of the Imperial Government having on all previous occasions of the kind been successfully invoked; and, whether he will cause further inquiry to be made into the grievances alleged by the people of Central Queensland, through their Parliamentary representatives, to result from the present system of government, so that, if shown to be well founded, such grievances may be redressed, and remedial measures adopted as soon as practicable?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The question will be kept in view by Her Majesty's Government; but they have satisfied themselves that no immediate action is desirable, and they are of opinion that any further inquiry into the matter at the present moment is unnecessary. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I am not prepared to answer it without a fuller examination of the precedents than I have been able to make.

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. J. SWIFT MACNEILL), I beg to

  377
  ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the inspector appointed by Government to investigate the circumstances under which operations have been performed, with or without anæsthetics, on living animals, which was promised some weeks ago, will be published and circulated; and, will he explain what is the reason for the delay in the publication of this Report?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The Return of experiments on living animals will, I am informed, be issued to-morrow morning. The delay was caused by my not receiving the Irish portion of the Return until the 27th July.

  TELEGRAPHISTS (BELFAST).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, with reference to the most recent case of promotion to the first class of telegraphists (male) in Belfast, how many members of the second class were upon that occasion superseded; what is their respective length of service; also the length of service of the individual by whom they were superseded; what was the date upon which they respectively received their final increment, according to their present class; and in how many instances since then were they passed over in promotion; whether, seeing that there are some of the present members of the first class of telegraphists in Belfast, who were raised to that class, who at no period performed the ordinary routine duties of a telegraph office, and who possess no knowledge of practical telegraphy, will he explain why this dissimilarity of treatment; and, if he will cause steps to be taken to guard against its repetition in the future?
  MR. HANBURY: In the recent case of promotion to the first class of telegraphists (male) at Belfast, the number of men passed over on the second class was four. The length of service of these four men is 12 years G months, 29 years, 25 years 8 months, and 25 years 1 month respectively. One of them obtained his maximum in October, 1891; the other three have been for some years at the
  378
  maximum of their scale; and they have all been several times passed over—two on account of their bad records, two because they were not considered competent for promotion. The officer by whom they were last passed over has 10 years and 10 months' service. It is the fact that certain of the duties performed by first-class telegraphists do not involve the manipulation of telegraph instruments; but the performance of such duties is equally important, and certainly does not imply that the person performing them is in any way lacking as regards character, conduct, or general efficiency. In the interests of the Service, as well as in justice to individuals, the Postmaster General must again point out that it is most undesirable that questions of the kind should be raised in the House of Commons.

  ASSAULT CASE (ROSSMORE ESTATE, IRELAND).
  MR. J. DILLON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway (Mr. JOHN ROCHE), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the two assaults on a tenant on the Ross-more estate, named Tully, committed by two emergency men in August, 1895, one with a mallet and the other with a stake, during an attempt to fence off a portion of Tully's holding, will he explain why it was that no policeman was called by the Crown at Petty Sessions to prove who struck the blow with a stake, although five or six civilians proved it was Nesbitt; whether he is aware that at last Spring Assizes no policeman was produced to prove who struck Tully, that the above-mentioned witnesses having proved that it was Nesbitt, another emergency man named Morrison stated that he struck the blow with the stake; whether, when Morrison was brought up at Woodford Petty Sessions, three policemen proved that Morrison did not strike the blow; will he also explain why it was that when the adjourned case came before Judge O'Brien at Summer Assizes the Crown produced no witnesses; and, will he make inquiries into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Two constables were examined in this case at Woodford Petty Sessions on the 27th

  379
  August 1895, but they were not able to prove that it was Nesbitt who inflicted the blow that injured Tully. Four civilian witnesses gave evidence that the blow causing serious injury to Tully was struck by Nesbitt. As to the second paragraph, the same two constables were produced and examined at the last Spring Assizes and repeated the evidence given by them at Petty Sessions. The four civilian witnesses also repeated their evidence at Petty Sessions. On the conclusion of the evidence for the Crown, Morrison came forward and swore that it was he who struck Tully, and when brought up at Petty Sessions two constables and a retired sergeant of police gave evidence to the effect that Morrison could not have struck Tully. At the Summer Assizes the Grand Jury found a true bill against Morrison, who pleaded guilty, and the Crown had consequently no opportunity of examining witnesses on this occasion.

  CHARGE OF ASSAULT (DUMBARTON).
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the case of a lad named Erskine, who was tried by a sheriff and jury at Dumbarton last month, on a charge of indecent exposure and assault, and acquitted by a verdict of not proven; if he can state the date when the alleged offence was committed; the date when the case was reported by the police to the Procurator-Fiscal; the date when the Procurator-Fiscal, by himself or deputy, visited the locus of the alleged crime, took the requisite precognitions, and satisfied himself of the relevancy of the charge; upon what date was the warrant for the arrest of the accused issued and executed; did the Procurator-Fiscal call upon accused and his parents, and procure statements and a list of witnesses to substantiate an alibi before himself investigating the charges; and, upon what date did the Procurator-Fiscal report the case to the Crown Office?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I have made inquiry into this matter. The accused was charged with committing two offences on the same day, viz., 4th May. One was reported to the Procurator-Fiscal on the 9th and the other
  380
  on the 13th May. The Procurator-Fiscal visited the place and took precognitions on the 20th May. These were forwarded to Crown Counsel on the 26th May. A warrant was issued on the 1st and the accused was arrested on the 5th June, but liberated on bail the same day. The Procurator-Fiscal did not call upon accused or his parents or procure statements to substantiate an alibi before investigating the charges, but subsequently precognitions were taken from some witnesses in exculpation and reported to Crown Counsel on the 15th June, with the result that the case was, on the 20th June, ordered for trial by the sheriff and jury. The trial took place on the 27th July, and a verdict of "Not proven" was returned. The evidence is very conflicting, but seeing that the evidence of identification was most complete, Crown Counsel, in my opinion, acted correctly, in the circumstances, in dealing with the case as they did.

  ARREST OF A STOKER (H.M.S. "CHARYBDIS.")
  MR. H. KIMBER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) whether he has investigated the case of William Arthur Filce, sailor, employed as stoker on Board H.M.S. Charybdis, Sheerness, who, on the 21th day of June last was arrested at midnight, at his home at Balham, for over-staying his leave from ship, and, notwithstanding a medical certificate that he was ill, signed by Dr. Cannock of Balham, was locked up in a police cell all night, without production of any warrant, and next day (Thursday 25th) was taken before a police magistrate who committed him at once, as a deserter from the Royal Navy, to Holloway Gaol, where he was kept under prison discipline and made to wear the prison dress for nine days, no report being made to his ship and no attempt made to deliver him until after he had been in prison a week, namely on Wednesday 1st July, when his wife went to the Vice Admiral at Sheerness and told him the story, upon which the Admiral signalled to the Charybdis, and the answer came back that they did not know where the man was, whereupon the Admiral courteously promised to look into the case; (2) whether it is in

  381
  accordance with the regulations of the Navy, and with the law, that a seaman can be so arrested and without warrant, and so confined and treated, or what is the explanation of the matter; and (3), whether the same man had deposited £12 with the paymaster in or about Easter to purchase his discharge, which money was retained until the above occurrences, and then returned to him without any reason being given to him; and what was the reason?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Member has omitted a most material fact in his Question, namely, that the man, after sending in a certificate that he was ill from vertigo, i.e., giddiness, and was unable to travel, was absent when the police, at the request of the Captain of the Charybdis, called at his house to verify the man's statement. They accordingly telegraphed this information to his captain, from whom they received a reply, ordering them to arrest him, which they did at midnight, finding him on his way home from the Canterbury Music Hall. The action of the police was strictly legal under Section 9 of the Act 11 and 12 Vic. c. 62, and the man being an absentee was properly charged by the police before a magistrate, who committed him as a straggler. The police did not give notice to the Captain of his ship, but in the usual course informed the Admiralty of his committal, and they had no knowledge of the facts or of the identity of the man. Some delay occurred at the Admiralty in tracing the man's papers, his identity, etc., but when this was established in the usual manner, the police were directed to take Filce to his ship. In answer to the last paragraph, the man had deposited £12 with the paymaster against the hitter's receipt, the necessary step under the regulations preliminary to the investigation as to whether the discharge can be granted or not. The decision to refuse it was communicated to the port on the 17th June, and to the man on the 19th or 20th, so that he knew it before going on leave on the 22nd, and this decision could not therefore have been influenced in the slightest degree by the subsequent action of the man.

  BURMESE RAILWAYS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the facts connected with the reported sale of Burmese railways by the Government of India to a syndicate; and, if one of those conditions includes a Government guarantee of interest on the stock of those railways?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): No sale of the Burmese railways has taken place or was ever contemplated. A company has been formed, under agreement with the Secretary of State in Council, and with the concurrence of the Government of India, for working the existing system and making extensions. On the capital raised by the Company, interest at 2½ per cent. is guaranteed by the Government.

  ARMY PENSION (ALEXANDER MACKENZIE).
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Alexander Mackenzie, a native of Dingwall, who enlisted in the 2nd Battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders in 1885, at the age of 19 years and 4 months, and after two years' service with his regiment, mainly in India, was, owing to the effects of the climate, incapacitated for service and discharged with a certificate marked exemplary, both as regards conduct and character, and who has since his discharge, and in consequence of his incapacitation as aforesaid, become imbecile and incapable of doing anything for his own support; and, whether there is any fund or institution in connection with the Army for the relief of soldiers who so suffer in the service of the country; and, if so, whether the Under Secretary of State for War will inquire into the case of the said Alexander Mackenzie with a view to the favourable consideration of his claims for relief?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): This man was discharged after a little more than two years' service on account of epilepsy

  383
  which he developed before he had been a year in India. He appears to have been of weak intellect while in the service, and I regret to say that there is no fund or institution over which the Secretary of State has control from which relief can be given to him.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: May I ask whether there are not funds, if not under the control of the Secretary of State, under the control of other persons, which would be applicable to a case of this sort?
  *MR. BRODRICK: There are no funds available for the pension of soldiers. There are the funds in the hands of the Patriotic Fund for the relief of soldiers' widows, but there are no funds available for the pension of soldiers except those granted by Parliament in respect of long service.

  MAYBRICK (MRS.).
  MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Lord Russell of Killowen stated, in his letter to the Home Office, that his opinion, as head of the criminal justiciary of England, was that Mrs. Maybrick ought to be immediately released, and did his Lordship authorise the Home Secretary to make his statement public; and, whether he will inform the House the precise nature of the communication referred to?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on this subject on July 31st. I have nothing to add to them except that the objections to laying the letter of the Lord Chief Justice on the Table of the House apply equally to my making any statement as to its contents.

  ROAD REPAIR (GLAMORGANSHIRE).
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the condition of the road between Hirwain and Cwmsmintan, in Glamorganshire; whether it is the duty of the County Council of Glamorganshire
  384
  or the County Council of Brecknockshire to see to its repair; and whether any and what steps have been taken by the Local Government Board to bring pressure; to bear upon the authorities responsible for the condition of such road?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board in March last received a complaint from a Member of the Penderyn Parish Council as to the road referred to. The Board communicated with the County Councils of Glamorgan and Brecon on the subject, and the Brecon-shire County Council, in May last, informed the Board that the liability of repair was a matter in dispute between the two counties, and that the question was about to be settled by arbitration. The Board have not received any further communication on the subject. The question as to the liability to repair is not one which the Board have any jurisdiction to determine, and I cannot undertake to express any opinion on the question in the case referred to.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentlemen promise that the Board will do all it can to get this road repaired?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Certainly.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a letter published in the Ennis-killen local papers from Mr. J. Mahaffy, J.P., Belturbet, complaining that the £30,000 spent on the drainage of Lough Erne has resulted in rendering the River Erne less navigable than before: and will the Treasury direct the Board of Works to make an immediate inquiry into the management and expenditure of this Board?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir. Mr. Mahaffy has not communicated his letter to me, nor has any complaint on the subject reached the Treasury. If the hon. Member will kindly let me have a copy of the letter, together with any other information he may have on the subject, I will look into the matter and communicate the result to him.
  MR. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that an Inquiry will be granted?
  MR. HANBURY: I have given the hon. Gentleman the fullest information I can.

  VACCINATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would grant a Return of the oust of the Royal Commission on Vaccination up to the end of March 1896, promised on the 30th of April last.
  MR. HANBURY: Last April the hon. Member put down a notice to move for a Return of this expenditure, and I informed him by letter of the 29th April that I would agree to it; but he appears to have taken no further action in the matter till now. Subsequently I informed the House, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Gloucester, on the 11th May last, that the total cost of this Commission up to the 31st March had been £16,792. This answer appears to make the Return now in question unnecessary.

  TUNBRIDGE WELLS POST OFFICE.
  MR. GRIFFITHBOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a memorial, signed by 20 out of a possible 25 postmen at Tunbridge Wells, complaining of certain regulations of the Post Office in force there; and whether the Postmaster General can see his way to meeting the demand of the men on the subject?
  MR. HANBURY: A memorial such as the hon. Member describes has been received. The regulation in question was to the effect that the Postmen when leaving the office on their delivery were to leave in single file. This order was made for the convenience of the public—the streets in the midst of which the Tunbridge Wells Office is situated being narrow—and it is not proposed to rescind it, at any rate, until the post office business at Tunbridge Wells is removed to the new office, which is more conveniently situated than the present one.

  DONAGHADEE HARBOUR.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the dredger sent to Donaghadee Harbour is still working there; if not, when and for what reason it was removed; whether he will make inquiry as to the very unsafe condition of the bottom of the harbour, and the danger to ships coming into it; and if he will consider the desirability of having a dredger with buckets sent to Donaghadee Harbour to complete the work there?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member has not allowed me sufficient time to obtain a report from Ireland on this subject, as this Question only appeared on Saturday's Paper. As soon as this can be done I will communicate with him on the subject.

  LOTHAIRE TRIAL.
  MR. J. F. OSWALD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. H. D. GREENE), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will now lay upon the Table of the House the documents and information and correspondence in their possession with reference to the execution of Mr. Stokes and the confiscation of his property and the proceedings in Boma and Brussels; whether Her Majesty's Government will insist upon the restitution of Mr. Stokes's property; and whether the Congo Government have properly complied with the requirements of Her Majesty's Government in respect to the trial of Major Lothaire?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The second trial of Major Lothaire is only just completed, and it is a little difficult for me to answer the Questions of the hon. and learned Member before Her Majesty's Government have even received a report of the entire proceedings, or been made fully acquainted with what took place. When this knowledge is in their possession there will be no objection to laying papers, though their voluminous character and the exigencies of translation may occasion some delay. As regards Mr. Stokes's property, the report of Vice Consul Arthur on the

  387
  subject from Boma has not yet been received.
  MR. OSWALD: May I ask whether there is any objection to sending to the hon. Gentleman who put the Question down the papers when they arrive?
  MR. CURZON: As I have just said, the papers will be published as soon as we get them into form, and the hon. Member will see them when published.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: May I ask whether the two Courts which heard the case were not Courts of competent jurisdiction, and, if so, whether their decisions are not, by the comity of nations, bound to be respected?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir; I believe they were both Courts of competent jurisdiction under the law of the Congo State.

  VACCINATION ORDERS (BRADFORD-ON-AVON).
  CAPTAIN CHALONER (Wilts,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to certain vaccination cases tried at Bradford-on-Avon Petty Sessions on 27th May, whether he has now received the statements, duly attested, of the defendant, George Henry Banks, and his accredited friend, William Grove Parriss, and other witnesses, to the effect that the defendant was not present in Court when the decision was given, and that Mr. Parriss was refused a hearing for all his cases on the sole ground that he was not a solicitor; and, whether, in view of the refusal of a statutory right having been thus shown to have taken place, he is prepared to advise that the orders made on the absent defendant should be cancelled?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, I have received these statements, and can only conclude that there has been some misunderstanding of the grounds on which Mr. Parriss was refused a hearing. The order was not made, as stated in the Question, in the defendant's absence; and in any case jurisdiction to cancel it lies not with me, but with the High Court.

  PARTICULAR SERVICE SQUADRON.
  MR. EDWARD MORTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for
  388
  Devonport (Mr. H. E. KEARLEY), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to continue the Particular Service Squadron in commission for a prolonged period, or whether there is any prospect of it being paid off or returning to England before the end of the year.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The course to be taken with regard to the maintenance of the Particular Service Squadron in commission must depend upon a variety of circumstances, and I am not prepared to make a statement on the subject at present.

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN FLEETS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Return of Fleets of Great Britain and Foreign Countries, ordered 2nd June, is likely to be circulated.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The compilation of the return is somewhat laborious, but is now completed subject to a revise. Proofs have been received, and the Return will be laid on the Table, in dummy, during the recess.

  REFORM COMMITTEE PRISONERS (PRETORIA).
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the letters of Mr. Lionel Phillips and Mr. James Salter White, in the papers of 5th and 6th August, both of which gentlemen affirm that Sir Jacobus de Wet promised the protection of the British Government to all the Members of the Reform Committee as well as to the British residents in Johannesburg, if they laid down they arms, stating that not a hair of the head of any Member of the Reform Committee would be touched, and that no personal indignities, such as imprisonment, would be inflicted on them; whether Sir Jacobus de Wet was at that time acting as the representative of the Queen, and under instructions from the High Commissioner, then at Pretoria; whether, in view of these facts, the Secretary of State for the Colonies still adheres to his statement

  389
  that no promise of protection was made to the British residents at Johannesburg; and, whether he will use the influence of Her Majesty's Government to obtain the release of the two Reform leaders still in Pretoria Gaol?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the letters from Mr. Lionel Phillips and Mr. James Salter White referred to, and, without in any way impugning the good faith of these gentlemen, I cannot accept their version of what passed between the Reform Committee and Sir Jacobus de Wet on the morning of the 7th of January last, and perhaps the House will bear with me while I state what I understood took place. On the 6th of January, Dr. Jameson and his forces being prisoners, and Johannesburg-being in armed but passive insurrection, Sir Hercules Robinson was informed by the Transvaal Government that Johannesburg must lay down its arms unconditionally within 24 hours as a condition precedent to a discussion and consideration of grievances. He endeavoured to obtain some indication of the steps which would be taken in the event of disarmament, but without success. This decision was at once communicated to the Reform Committee at Johannesburg by a telegram from Sir Jacobus de Wet. Late in the same day, January 6th, the Government announced that it would hand over Dr. Jameson and all other prisoners to be dealt with as Her Majesty's Government should decide, but that the transfer would not take place until Johannesburg had complied with the ultimatum just mentioned. It was therefore agreed that Sir Jacobus de Wet should proceed early on the 7th to Johannesburg in order to interview the Reform Committee and explain the position to the people generally, who were infuriated with the Reform Committee, by whom they thought that Dr. Jameson had been invited and betrayed. The interview which followed in the morning-is the subject-matter of this Question. I have no official information of what passed in conversation, but Sir Jacobus de Wet has given the following account of his own part in it in a letter which appeared in the Saturday Review of July 4th:—
  "Secondly, regarding the private promise which I am alleged to have made to the members
  390
  of the Reform Committee, that if they brought about a peaceful disarmament the Transvaal Government would grant a free pardon, this is also incorrect. What I did say to individual members of the committee, who asked what would be done with them, was that I had no official information or any information on that point, but that, in my private opinion, nothing would he done. Anyone knowing the circumstances and the attitude of the President would have been justified in drawing such an inference."
  At the end of the morning's meeting the Reform Committee passed a resolution saying that, having seriously considered the ultimatim of the Government that Johannesburg must lay down its arms, they had unanimously decided to comply with this demand. They went on to say that in coming to this decision the committee had been actuated by a paramount desire to do everything possible to insure the safety of Dr. Jameson and his men, to advance the amicable discussion of terms of settlement with the Transvaal Government, and support the High Commissioner in his efforts. This resolution was telegraphed by Sir Jacobus de Wet to the Government at Pretoria, as well as to the High Commissioner, and elicited a reply from the former, in which, after quoting the ultimatum of the day before, it was said:—
  "As you will see, no single condition is included herein. The disarmament must he, as already stated, unconditional. Whatever, therefore, may happen with regard to a discussion of affairs or other things of whatever nature, they have nothing to do with the laying down of arms. Whilst the resolution of the committee, calling itself the Reform Committee, makes a mention of a discussion of grievances and of a motion in the matter of the safety of Dr. Jameson and so on, it is extremely desirable that the committee calling itself the Reform Committee should without delay be clearly placed in a knowledge of the true state of things."
  Sir Jacobus de Wet appears to have done what was suggested, because at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of that day (the 7th of January) the Reform Committee telegraphed to the High Commissioner, saying:—"We have surrendered our arms unconditionally." It will, thus, be seen that up to the time of laying down their arms the committee did not claim that either the Transvaal Government or the High Commissioner was in any way pledged to them as regards their own personal liberty. Subsequently the Reform Committee were arrested, examined before a magistrate, enlarged on bail,

  391
  surrendered themselves in due course for trial, pleaded guilty, were sentenced to various punishments—four of them to death—petitioned for clemency, with the exception of the two still in prison, and were set at liberty on terms already known to the House. These being the facts, I am unable to believe that during all these events the whole body were in possession of, but kept silence about, a pledge from the High Commissioner or British Agent that not a hair of their heads would be touched and that no personal indignity such as imprisonment would be inflicted on any of them. I may add that Sir Hercules Robinson has informed me that before he met the executive council on the morning of the 6th of January, he was informed by a delegate from Johannesburg that the position was desperate and the town could not hold out for 48 hours against an attack by the Boers. His governing motive in his action, apart from a desire to obtain the transfer of the Jameson force, was a desire to save Johannesburg from the loss of life and suffering which would have followed from such an attack. The hon. Gentleman also asks me whether I will use the influence of her Majesty's Government to obtain the release of the two Reform leaders still in Pretoria Gaol. I have already on two occasions sent a message to those gentlemen urging them to adopt the same course as adopted by their fellow prisoners and make their own petition to the Transvaal Government. If they do this I shall, of course, be glad to support them in any way in my power, but if they refuse, from what I consider to be mistaken notions of dignity, I do not think I can interfere. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any official Dispatch from Sir Jacobus de Wet in which that gentleman denies the statement made directly by Mr. Lionel Phillips and Mr. White; whether he is aware that a third member of the Reform Committee has also written to the papers entirely confirming the statement of the other two Gentlemen; whether there is in his possession a telegram—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! the hon. Member is now replying to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. These are matters which should
  392
  form the subject of a separate interrogation. [Cheers.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: These questions do directly arise out of my first question ["Order, order!"]; but if you prevent me from putting them, I cannot of course dispute your ruling.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLArising out of the last paragraph of the question, Sir, I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether, as the two persons still in prison will not make application for release, probably on account of their having to bind themselves not to take any part in the political affairs of the Transvaal, he could represent in a friendly way to President Kruger that the end he wished to attain would be better gained by banishing them from the Republic.
  MR. McLEODasked whether the Mr. Phillips in question was not the Mr. Phillips who bolted from his trial at Pretoria.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no; Mr. Phillips did not bolt at all. ["Hear, hear!"] In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I think that he seems to have forgotten that the conditions imposed on the other gentlemen involved the alternative, either that they were to give an assurance that they would not take further part in political affairs in the Transvaal, or that they were to be banished. Of course, if these gentlemen preferred banishment to giving the assurance asked for, there was nothing to prevent them from accepting that alternative. ["Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: Does that offer still hold good?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: These gentlemen have absolutely refused to make any application to the Transvaal Government in the matter, but if they make such an application as was made by their colleagues and companions in imprisonment, I have no doubt that the same conditions will be offered to them. [Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you rule that it is out of order for me to ask the right hon. Gentleman to communicate to the House the Dispatch in which Sir J. De Wet denies the truth of these assertions?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have not ruled such a question to be out of order. I ruled out of order a long series of questions which were in the nature of a reply to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. (Cheers).
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. friend has not paid attention to my answer. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I told him that I had no official confirmation from Sir J. De Wet on the subject, but that I took his denial from the letter he wrote to the Saturday Review. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Was it to that letter that the right hon. Gentleman referred the other day when he said that Sir J. De Wet had denied the truth of these assertions?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly. ["Hear, hear!"]

  WOODS AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT (SALARIES).
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the salaries of certain officials attached to some Government Departments do not appear on the Estimates, their salaries being paid by way of fees and poundage, thus making it impossible for any Member to raise on the Estimates any question relating to the work or salary of such offices; and, whether steps will be taken, either by inserting a nominal salary on the Estimates or in such other way as may be expedient, to enable the House to discuss the work or salary of officers paid by fees and poundage?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to officers of the Woods and Forests Department. Possibly the question could be raised on the salaries of the Commissioners, but probably it could not, as the officers are not paid out of voted moneys. A Select Committee of 1857 recommended that they should be paid from the Votes, but the Treasury decided against it, on the ground that it raised questions connected with the present arrangement of the Civil List; £100 might, however, be placed on the Votes for the purpose of bringing the officers' action under review, but without prejudicing the general question, and I am disposed to think this should be done.

  TRACTION ENGINES ON ROADS.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committee on Traction Engines on Roads, and the proposals unanimously made therein; and, whether he will be prepared to bring in a Bill embodying these proposals next Session?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The President will carefully consider, during the recess, the recommendations of the Select Committee, but he cannot give any pledges as to the legislation which will be proposed next Session.

  RELIGIOUS BODIES (COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS).
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Woods and Forests in 1890, the Commissioners of Woods have been empowered to treat all religious denominations on a footing of equality in regard to donations out of the income of the land revenues for religious and educational purposes?
  MR. HANBURY: By Section 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1894 (57 and 58 Vic, Cap. 43) the Commissioners of Woods may, with the consent of the Treasury, make out of the income of the Land Revenues of the Crown, donations of money for any religious or educational purposes connected with land under the management of the Commissioners, or for the purposes of any hospital, infirmary or cemetery. The power given by this section was obtained in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1890.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (ANNUAL REPORT).
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Annual Report of the Board for 1895–6 will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Considerable progress has been made with the Annual Report, and a large portion of it is in type. The Report will be issued at as early a date as possible. It may be

  395
  mentioned that part of the information furnished in the Report cannot be obtained until some time after the expiration of the year for which the Report is made. For instance, the final statement as to the local taxation account for the year ending 31st March is not obtainable until the month of June.

  BENGAL TENANCY ACT, 1885.
  MR. GORELL BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the leading article of The Pioneer of 16th July 1896, in which it is stated that chaos has supervened in the relations between landlord and tenant throughout Bengal by reason of certain decisions under the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885; whether it is true, as stated by The Pioneer, that the ruling of the full bench of the High Court of Bengal in the case of Upadhay Thakoor shows that for some years past some of the highest executive officers in Bengal, drawing pay of Rs.2,000 per mensem and upwards, have been employed under the Bengal Tenancy Act in exercising an illegal jurisdiction; whether it is true, as stated by the same authority, that some hundreds of thousands of decisions in recent rent and boundary cases have been invalidated by this ruling; and, whether he will lay all the papers upon the Table of the House of Commons before assenting to any extension of the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act, or any further alteration in the land laws of Bengal?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have seen the article in The Pioneer to which my hon. Friend alludes, but I have no official information on the subject of the recent working of the Bengal Tenancy Act. I will, however, make inquiries on the subject.

  ANDERSON v. GORRIE AND OTHERS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Attorney General—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case of "Anderson v. Gorrie and Others," the defendants being Judges of the Colony of Trinidad, tried in London in May 1894, before the late Lord Chief Justice and a special jury, when, notwithstanding that the jury found a verdict in
  396
  express terms that one of the defendants oppressively and with malice overstrained his judicial powers to the prejudice of the plaintiff and wilful perversion of justice, and found a verdict for the plaintiff for £500, the presiding Judge directed judgment to be entered for the defendant on the ground that such an action did not lie against a Judge at all; (2) whether he is aware that that judgment has been upheld by the Court of Appeal, and that it was suggested by one of the Judges of that Court that in the present state of the law of England if a Judge, while sitting as such, were to shoot a man in Court and kill him, it is doubtful if proceedings for murder would lie against him; and, (3) whether the Government will initiate legislation to rectify this state of the law, or, at all events, to define what the law is?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I am well acquainted with the facts of this case; but I do not agree that the second paragraph of the question represents the true view of the law as laid down by the Judges. In my opinion the law does not require amendment in this respect. It has remained the same for a great many years, and I am not aware that any cases of injustice have been brought before the public. It is absolutely necessary that Judges should be protected. [" Hear, hear."]

  SOUTH AFRICAN COMMITTEE.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether with reference to the proposed names to serve on the South African Committee, he has assured himself that no Member to be proposed is or has been a shareholder in the South African Chartered Company?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, an impartial Select Committee to deal with this subject is not to be sought for in the same sense as an impartial Committee appointed to deal with a private Bill. If the House desired that the matter should be dealt with by a judicial tribunal, it ought to have taken steps to secure that it should be sent to a judicial tribunal. ["Hear, hear!"]

  397
  I have not made the inquiries suggested in the Question, and I have made no attempt to interfere with the ordinary way of appointment of a Member notoriously hostile to the company, any more than I should interfere in order to include gentlemen who are notoriously in its favour. [Cheers.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *SIR CHAULES DILKEasked whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to take certain private Members' Bills to-night before the Government business was concluded, and, if so, why had that decision been arrived at without notice being given to the House with regard to it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The House will perceive that some four or five private Rills have been put down before the end of the Government business to-night. If that course had not been adopted, it would have been impossible to have taken them after the whole of the Government business had been disposed of. These Dills have been put down on the understanding that they are absolutely unopposed and that it is the desire of every individual Member of the House that they shall pass. Of course if the Measures are opposed they will not be taken. If they are unopposed, I think that it is only right that they should have a chance of passing through this House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HERMON-HODGEasked what had been the cause of the delay in the appointment of the Commission on Rating?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The list of the members of the Commission is now completed, and I hope to be able to announce the names to the House almost forthwith.
  MR. T. LOUGHasked whether, before the operation of the guillotine began, they would have an opportunity of discussing the Prisons Vote?
  SIB W. HARCOURTasked whether the Motion for the nomination of the Select Committee on British South Africa would be taken that night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Motion for the Committee cannot come on, I think, if it is likely to be discussed in a controversial spirit. I am anxious to bring on the Motion for the Committee as soon as I can, but I do not think it would be convenient to sit late for that purpose. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Islington in regard to the Votes on the Paper for to-night, I will endeavour to take the report of Votes on which a discussion is desired to-morrow, in a manner which would give an opportunity for discussion. Under the existing Standing Orders, it appears that it is not in the power of the Government to alter the order of the Votes on Report, and we are obliged to take them in precisely the same order as in Committee of the House. I would, however, suggest that next year we give the Government the same power to arrange Votes on Report as the Government now have to arrange Votes in Committee. I shall, therefore, be in the hands of the House to-morrow when I ask them on Report to postpone certain Votes which do not require discussion in order to discuss others which do. I will endeavour to meet the views of the House in so dealing with the Report of Supply.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Can the Report of an early Vote be postponed till some period of the same day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is possible, and if the House will second the Government I will endeavour to postpone Votes so that the important ones shall have precedence. I think the Prisons Vote is one which should be discussed, but I believe there has been some discussion on it already, so that I cannot absolutely promise in regard to that Vote.

  CRETE.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had any confirmation of a telegram in the Daily News as to the roasting and mutilation of a priest in the island of Crete?
  *MR. CURZON: We received a telegram this morning that an attack had been made by a body of Mussulmans upon a Christian monastery, and that

  399
  several of the inmates had been killed, including three monks; but there is no mention of the roasting of a priest, or the incident to which the hon. Member referred.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries on the subject?
  *MR. CURZON: We are very fully informed by our representatives there of any incidents of which they are personally cognizant, and if anything so deplorable has happened I have no doubt we shall have early notice of it by telegraph.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMMITTEE (PERSONAL EXPLANATION).
  *SIR GEORGE OSBORNE MORGANasked permission of the House to make a short statement on a personal matter. Hon. Members might have observed in the morning papers that an hon. Member, who at first did not disclose his personal identity, but who now turned out to be the Member for Barrow-in-Eurness, had done him the honour to propose him as a Member of the South Africa Committee in the place of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. He desired to say that this was done not only without his sanction, but without his knowledge. He had never expressed or entertained any wish or intention to supplant or displace his hon. Friend, and least of all should he have done so in his absence from the House and behind his back. He was fully alive to the high honour and privilege of serving on such a Committee, but to have his name pitchforked into the Notice Paper without a word being said to him on the subject, and at a time when the constitution of the Committee had been practically settled, was somewhat distasteful, and certainly most unusual. Though he had probably served on as many Select Committees as anyone in the House, he had never yet known such a thing to be done. He thought, under these circumstances, he was entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN DRAINAGE BILL.
  The reasons for disagreement with the Lords' Amendments to this Bill were presented by the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith), and the House formally disagreed with the Amendments to which exception had been taken.

INDIAN BUDGET.
On the Motion of Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, it was agreed that the Indian Budget should be put down for Wednesday
*MR. SPEAKERsuggested that the hon. Members who intended to put down Amendments should ballot for precedence to-morrow.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Is it the intention of the Government to take the Indian Budget on Wednesday?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

      CLASS II.
      1. Motion made, and Question proposed:
      "That a sum, not exceeding £116,997, 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."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)called attention to the fact that under the Tenth section of the Act of 1888 power was given to the Local Government Board to delegate certain powers to the County Councils, and under

      401
      another section of the Act the County Councils had power to combine. He suggested that a combination of County Councils might be formed to which further powers should be delegated. The Local Government Board at present was severely overworked, and the only way in which the officials might be enabled to discharge all their important duties would be by relieving them of certain petty details attached to their office. There were, for instance, the adjustment of boundaries and the questions of gas, water, electric lighting, and tramways. To show the state of overwork which existed in the Department he cited the case of the County Council of which he was a member, which had made an application in regard to the adjustment of a boundary three years ago, an application which, although it was reported on favourably by the inspector of the Local Government Board, had only just been attended to owing to the kindness of the Secretary of the Local Government Board. But not even the Secretary of the Board, with all his industry, could possibly attend to all the cases which arose. Next, as to the question of loans to local authorities, be did not suggest that the County Councils should have the right to sanction loans. His suggestion was that where the county was very small it should be able to join with another Council, and that a Joint Committee should be appointed, and that this Joint Committee should have the power of sanctioning loans and inquire into the matter. This would greatly relieve the Local Government Board. He suggested that on a question of that kind where the finance of a county was too small, it should be allowed to combine with others and form a Joint Committee. There were a few other questions, as the appointment of officers of health. He thought if they had a joint committee of the County Councils that would be well done. He witnessed the case of Glamorgan and Brecon in the making of roads, and urged that a combination of the County Councils would be to the common interest. Another question was audit and surcharge. A Joint Committee could deal well with such matters, with regard to which there were many applications of the local authorities. They knew that there were Boards of Guardians who would not put into operation the powers
      402
      they had for the relief of the poor. What he said was that they ought to have a power which would act more or less on the spot, and which would not be over-burdened with an infinity of details on other matters. Well, he should not go through many other questions which the Local Government Board knew of very well. There were questions connected with the unemployed, with regard to whom the powers possessed were not enforced. If they would allow the County Councils to combine and gave them power to carry out the orders which they might consider it safe to intrust to one County Council, he thought there would be a great gain. In 1888 the Local Government Board had attempted something of the kind. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to experiment in this direction. He begged to move to reduce the vote by £100.
      *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT,said he was not concerned to deny the importance of the general question which his hon. Friend had somewhat unexpectedly introduced to the Committee; still less did he entertain a feeling of jealousy of the County Councils; on the contrary, so far as County Councils were concerned in the management of their own county affairs, he shared in the very highest degree the feeling in favour of the localisation of powers. He would, indeed, support the devolution of many powers exercised by Parliament and the Departments, and he believed this to be the only way of solving questions of the highest political importance relating to each branch of the United Kingdom by moans of the extension of local government, for the sake of both Parliament and the localities. But most of the powers sought by his hon. Friend to be transferred referred to purely local matters, and would be just as much centralised, qua the boroughs, if placed in the hands of County Councils as they were in the hands of the Local Government Board. The boroughs had formed the precedent and example for the formation of County Councils, which were comparatively things of yesterday, and they could not be absorbed in or subordinated in any way to the new creations of 1888. The boroughs believed that their relations with the Local Government Board were more conducive to progress and reform than

      403
      could be the case if an inexperienced body like the County Council was substituted for the central authority. Taken as a whole, the relations between the boroughs and the Local Government Board had been excellent; the boroughs had great confidence in the Board; and while in favour of a large devolution of powers to both county and borough councils, they strongly objected to being placed under any new jurisdiction.
      *SIR GEORGE OSBORNE MORGANsaid he should have thought that if there was one body in the world competent to deal with the matters which under the Local Government Act might be transferred, it was a Joint Committee of County Councils. What happened at present? The Local Government Board was notoriously overworked and undermanned, and considerable time elapsed before an application was even attended to. The inspector sent down possessed no local knowledge, and got his information from the very persons to whom it was proposed to delegate these powers. In the case of Wales he did not know the language of the people, and in this respect it would be a distinct advantage to substitute the County Councils for the central authority. The President of the Local Government Board had already acknowledged that there was much in the contention of his hon. Friend, and he hoped that some definite action would now be promised.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said that when the subject was raised on a former occasion he carefully guarded himself against giving any pledges; and he confessed that in the multiplicity of work with which the Local Government Board had to deal during the past few months this question had to some extent escaped attention. He admitted that the hon. Member's suggestion sounded very attractive, but it was not quite so easy to give effect to it as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. There was the objection on the part of the boroughs. They had some experience on that point, for, in pursuance of the power contained in the Act of 1888, the Local Government Board in the following year issued a Provisional Order by which it was proposed to transfer certain powers to County Councils. Considerable opposition was
      404
      offered, and the Committee on the Bill reported that it dealt with questions which appeared to them beyond their powers. There were two difficulties in connection with the hon. Member's proposal to limit to Wales the transfer of these powers. In the first place he was advised that in all probability this could not be done without legislation, and the hon. Member was well aware of the difficulties in the way of legislation. A question also arose as to whether the powers referred to could be vested in one or more County Councils only. The Local Government Board was advised that any transfer under the Act must be made to County Councils generally, and, so far as he was aware, no general desire had been expressed for a proposal which was now made on behalf of Wales. The hon. Member suggested that the question of boundaries should be left to local authorities; but, as a matter of fact, the County Councils did settle boundaries now, the only interference on the part of the Local Government Board being with regard to appeals. That was a matter with regard to which the right hon. Gentleman had not given him much assistance. It would not be reasonable that the power of appeal should be to the very body who made the order.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is why I suggest a Joint Committee of the County Councils.
      MR. CHAPLINunderstood that the Joint Committee would make the order.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; the County Council would make the order in the first instance.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid then the matter was well worthy of consideration. The question of loans was of more importance. In that case the Local Government Board interfered on behalf of the future generation of ratepayers, and that was not a matter in which he could make the concession which the hon. Member desired. But, so far as it was possible to do anything in such matters as baths and washhouses, he would give the subject his consideration, and he hoped that probably in another Session he might be in a position to make a more definite statement. [Cheers.]
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think I ought to point out to the Committee that it appears, on

      405
      looking at the Local Government Act, that the only method by which these powers could be given to the different localities is by Provisional Orders—that is to say, by legislation. It is a well-known rule that in Committee of Supply future legislation cannot be discussed.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      *MR. WALTER HAZELLcalled attention to the recommendations of the Committee on the condition of the Metropolitan Poor Law Children. He stated that there were under the charge of the Poor Law Guardians of the Metropolis upwards of 17,000 children, and these might be taken to represent 50,000 children scattered over England and Wales. The Report of the Committee was a condemnation of the system of large barrack schools for these children. To begin with, ophthalmia was a great deal more rife among them than with children living under ordinary natural conditions, and, as to their general health, no less than 8 per cent. of the children were sometimes unable to be present at examinations in consequence of illness. Then the education was inferior to what they would obtain in ordinary public elementary schools. The scheme of education was adpoted in 1847, and except in the matter of drawing had remained unaltered for half a century. The recommendation of the Committee was that the system of barrack schools should be curtailed, and that even apart from this, the children should be sent as far as possible into the ordinary public elementary schools of the neighbourhood in which they lived. Even the so-called industrial training they received was recognised to be poor and second-rate. The girls sometimes left these schools in absolute ignorance of the use of the common utensils of the kitchen, and the boys did not understand how to change the common coinage of the realm. But the greatest of all existing evils was that life in a barrack for a child or an adult was an unnatural life. You could not develop the character, moral and intellectual of a child, by calling it No. 114; you could not call out sympathy by keeping it in a barrack where its idea of home was a long whitewashed corridor, leading to a huge dormitory containing scores of children. The life of these
      406
      poor children was one monotonous round. It had no kind of touch with the outer world; they could not go away for holidays because they had not fit relations to go to. Their whole school life was so cribbed, cabined, and confined, that in the end they were turned out, in the words of the Report, "dull, wooden and slow, and possessed of a great many moral and mental defects." More than that, this barrack life brought with it an unhappy habit of want of self-reliance. The system, too, was wasteful. The cost of these children worked out at 11s. 0½d. per head per week, whereas if they were boarded out with cottagers the cost would be 5s. 1½d. What were the remedies? The recommendation of the Committee amounted to this, that the children should be placed under the control of a central authority somewhat resembling in its constitution the Metropolitan Asylums Board, with a Children's Committee of each Board of Guardians in constant touch with this central authority. Such a system would enable children to be classified in a way that was not possible now, and it would enable the system of boarding-out to be developed—a system which had been very little adopted so far as London was concerned. There was no lack of cottage homes to which these children could be sent; such homes could be found in abundance. Today, from the Holborn District alone, with a population of 170,000 there were 800 children, who were not paupers, now visiting in country cottages through the organisation of the Children's Fresh Air Mission, while the whole of London at the present time managed to board out less than 1,000 out of 17,000 pauper children. The great bulk of the evidence pointed to the fact that the children were well treated. He admitted that it depended a great deal on the supervision of the local committees, but he contended that in this country, favoured as they were with so much local public spirit, there were many persons who would be only too glad to be set to work to help in any good cause; and he submitted that if they wanted to send 100,000 children away, they could be located in various villages with advantage to the villagers as well as to the children. The system prevailed in Scotland, France, the colony

      407
      of Victoria and other colonies. Their great aim should be to cut off the entail of pauperism, and this could not be done so long as they kept the children in touch with the workhouse. It was worth any effort or expense to bring the children up in such a way as to develop character and inculcate principles which should eventually make them good citizens, and if they placed the children in cottage homes, he contended that they were better fitting them for their future career than could be achieved by bringing them on scientific principles in a barrack. There was another system of groups of smaller homes, under the control of the guardians, where each house was under the care of a matron. Possibly a still better system was that adopted by the Sheffield Guardians of providing little isolated homes in different parts of the suburbs, where 10 or 15 of the children were placed under the care of a matron and where the utmost was done to bring the children into touch with the ordinary affairs of life. Evidence had been accumulated tending to show that the system of barrack homes was a system which this country ought to outgrow. We had entered on a period when the treatment of the poor was more humane and intelligent than formerly; and these poor children should have every possible opportunity given to overcome the difficulties of their origin. He urged the Local Government Board to hasten any legislation which might be required to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee. The President should also now make a distinct statement that in no circumstances would he grant to the three Boards of Guardians now applying for it the power to enlarge their barrack schools. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
      *MR. MONKsaid he had two complaints to make—one general and the other specific. Under the Local Government Act of 1894 Parish Councils came into existence with certain very serious duties to perform, some of which were imperfectly shadowed forth in the Act itself. It was left to the Local Government Board to issue orders relating to them. The consequence was that a vast number of orders were issued, and innumerable letters were addressed to the Board from all parts
      408
      of the country requesting advice and instructions. In many instances so great delay occurred in sending replies as absolutely to paralyse the action of the Parish Councils last year. That delay might have been occasioned by an insufficiency in the number of officials in that department; but, if such was the case, it was surely the duty of the President of the Local Government Board to apply to the Treasury for additional assistance. He did not, however, find' in these Estimates any material difference between the staff of clerks in 1896–7 from that in 1895–6, so that he was forced to the conclusion that the President was either satisfied with the present staff, or that the Treasury had refused to augment it. As an illustration of the evil arising from these delays, however they might be caused, he would instance the case of the parish in which he resided in Hertfordshire, where a scheme for a water supply, prepared by the Rural District Council, had been before the board for nearly five months before an inspector was sent to hold an inquiry respecting it. The consequence was that the village wells had become dry owing to the drought, and the unfortunate villagers were without water, while the best time for executing the work was lost. He left the right hon. Gentleman on the horns of the dilemma, and would only further assure him that the country would not tolerate inefficiency on the part of any of its public departments. Another complaint which he had to make was that the President appointed the 9th of March for parish meetings throughout the country for the election of parish councillors, whereas the 25th of March, or seven days before or after that date, was fixed by statute for the annual assembly of the parish meeting, whereby it became necessary to hold two parish meetings within 10 or 15 days of each other. Having in February last directed the attention of his right hon. Friend to the inconvenience thereby occasioned, and having received from him a reply to the effect that he recognised the inconvenience and regretted it, but that he considered it to be unavoidable owing to the date on which Easter fell this year, and to the fact that parish councillors came into office on the 15th of April; he

      409
      would now suggest to him that the annual assembly should be made moveable also, so that it might be held on the same day as that fixed by the Board for the election of councillors. That alteration might easily be effected by a short Act of a single clause, which he hoped would be introduced early in next Session. He commended that suggestion to the consideration of the President of the Local Government Board.
      SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he was rather amused at the complaint of his hon. Friend. In 1891 he told the House what would happen on this point, and suggested that the Local Government Board should have nothing to do with fixing the dates, because whatever course they took the Department was sure to be criticised. But the House insisted that the Local Government Board should have this responsibility, and he held that if the Department were to have this responsibility it should have the power. The question of the amount of work which the Local Government Board had to cope with was very serious. The administrative duties imposed upon the Department by different Acts of Parliament were very large in number and the staff of the office was insufficient. When he was in office he indicated that it would become absolutely necessary to increase the staff largely. The duties of the Department concerned the health and mode of life of a large portion of the people of this country, and Parliament ought not to be penny wise and pound foolish in dealing with this question of an insufficient staff. He thought that most hon. Members would agree that the protracted delay in the execution of Local Government Board work often resulted in serious injury to localities and in great extravagance locally. The House of Commons ought to insist that there should be no haggling between the Treasury and the Department, but that the staff should be increased. As had been pointed out, the Board was the guardian of the ratepayers of the future. It was, of course, a temptation to a local authority to borrow as much as it could and to throw as much of the burden as possible upon future ratepayers. It was the duty of the Board to limit the amount of that burden, and the necessary work could not be done without an
      410
      adequate staff of inspectors. There was no doubt that the office was undermanned. In the Finance Department, the Engineering Department, the Poor Law Department, and the Public Health Department the same complaint was heard, that the work could not be got through. When a serious outbreak of sickness occurred in any locality the country was always ready to blame the Board because it was not in a position to send down inspectors as often as might be wished. The need for increased expenditure was not as urgent in the case of any other public office as it was in the case of the Local Government Board.
      MR. GEOFFREY DRAGEassociated himself with the desire that had been expressed that assistance should be given to poor children to rise in the world. The stigma of pauperism ought to be removed from them in their educational progress. The repeal of the Departmental Committee, he suggested, perhaps disclosed only part of the evils of the Poor Law. It only referred to the Poor Law schools of the Metropolis, and it would be very interesting to know whether the evils which had been found to exist in these schools were also to be found in provincial schools. The Report showed that the burden laid on the officials of the Local Government Board in connection with Poor Law schools was too heavy. In consequence of the enormous task imposed upon the inspectors there was inevitable delay in sending in their reports, in considering them, and in transmitting them to local authorities. There was apparently no real control over Boards of Guardians in their management of schools, the only way by which the Local Government Board could impose its decisions being by a refusal to contribute to a school out of the Metropolis Poor Law Fund. In its indignation at the evils that had been discovered to exist the public was inclined to overlook the admirable work done by the Department and by self-denying and self-sacrificing persons of independent position, who had received nothing but blame and reproach for the valuable services which they had rendered. Too often no attempt was made to discriminate between Boards of Guardians who had done good work and those that had neglected their duties.

      411
      The question of industrial training in Poor Law schools was one to which too much importance could not be attached. The children ought to be taught in such a way as would enable them to adapt themselves to the varying circumstances of trade and to leave one industry, when need should arise, for another. He regretted to say that the law as to half-timers had been systematically neglected. Not only were these children deprived of their education, but many were rendered incapable of obtaining any work for the rest of their lives. A member of the London County Council had exposed the horrors of the system, and a more terrible account of the life of children had never been laid before a civilised country. Then there was the question of the maintenance of children of tender years in the workhouses. They were kept of necessity in the company of criminals merely because there was no other place to put them in. Not only were they deprived of their education, but they were brought up in habits of vice and crime, which left them no chance of becoming good citizens. There was also the question of the control of children when they left these institutions. It was notorious that parents, when once their children had received their outfit and got into work, took them away from their situations and turned them adrift in the world. He would like to suggest that it might be possible to utilise the Education Department in connection with the work of the Local Government Board, in the same way that work was done by the Home Office in connection with factory legislation. As the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Local Government Board had suggested, if any good was to be done, if any serious advance was to be made, the Local Government Board must receive further clerical assistance, and the staff of the inspectorate must be increased. Serious blots had been discovered in the boarding-out system, and if the system was to be remedied, it must be done by the appointment of an adequate number of capable women to enforce any regulations that might be made. The final question was the abolition of barrack schools, and in connection with that he would venture, in the first place, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government
      412
      Board the possibility of holding a general Inquiry into the system of Poor Law schools throughout the country. In the second place, an estimate of the expense which would be entailed by the abolition of barrack schools would have to be formed, and the question decided of how much ought to be done by the central authority and how much by the local authorities. He thought that no one ought to pass in review in that House a subject of this kind without mentioning the admirable work that had been done by the Metropolitan Association for Training Young Servants. It was impossible to over-estimate the work of that and kindred societies. After all, the question centred on the pure and simple question of pounds, shillings and pence, and if the right hon. Gentleman was to take any steps in the direction desired, he would have to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to provide the money. He therefore appealed to the House most strongly to let no consideration of money stand in the way of these very necessary reforms.
      *SIR CHARLES DILKEthought that both the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester had laid themselves open to the charge of having too lightly adopted statements which had not been proved. His hon. Friend the Member for Leicester gave some colour to the view that the barrack schools brought up a generation of paupers who ultimately found their way into the workhouses. That was not the case. Speaking as the manager for some years of one set of schools, he could say that they had made most careful inquiry on that point, and with the exception of a very few children permanently afflicted by some disease or accident which rendered them unable to get out into the world and earn a living, no children who had been in their schools ever came into their workhouse, and there were no inmates of the workhouse who had ever-been in any pauper school. That was one example of the fear he had that in dealing with this subject hon. Members might be led away by statements that could not be substantiated. The boarding-out system had been suggested as a remedy for the evil complained of, but

      413
      he would be out of order in discussing that system, because legislation would be required to render its general adoption possible. However much a Board like the Holborn Board—which was said to have boarded out 800 children, though they had not boarded out anything like that number—might desire to board out children, they could only apply the system to orphan and deserted children. The same was the case with emigration. Many Boards boarded out or emigrated all the children they could. If boarding out wert; found to be a universal remedy, of course legislation would be needed in the first place, and that legislation would be opposed by the parents, who would be led to suppose that they were consigning their children to a system of slavery. Many of them would altogether shrink from having their children sent to other people's homes to call other people father and mother. Therefore, he doubted whether it would be possible to extend the system beyond its present limits. With regard to the cases of ophthalmia that had occurred in some of the Metropolitan Board Schools, he must remind the Committee that such matters were not always easily dealt with. The Local Government Board had made most careful inquiries into the subject. No doubt where a very large number of poor children were gathered together there was always danger of an outbreak of ophthalmia occurring, but that was a danger that could be guarded against by the provision of temporary homes where the children could be kept apart. With regard to the suggestion that there ought to be a greater control by the central Department, he had always shrunk from adopting as a remedy for any defect in the administration of a particular Department the creation of a new Department, and there were many difficulties which he believed could not be met by such a change. The cottage homes system, he thought, was capable of extension but that was within the powers of the Boards of Guardians already, without further legislation being required. It must be remembered that during the last few years women had been allowed to serve on Boards of Guardians, and that there had recently been a large increase in the number of women serving upon those Boards. The services of women had certainly done a
      414
      great deal towards improving the system of administration of that branch of our local control. The boarding-out system which could not be extended without further legislation, had, in the case of some Metropolitan Boards of Guardians, been already pushed as far as it would go. The system of apprenticeship had been attacked, but his own experience of it was not unfavourable, and he believed that it had worked well up to the present time, and that it had been attended with beneficial results. With regard to the staff, he fully recognised the admirable work which they had performed, and that there was great need that it should be increased in strength. He also recognised the efforts that had been made by the Local Government Board to obtain an efficient audit of the accounts. Another matter which he desired to call attention to was the fact that the Local Government Board was always trying to induce the different local bodies to attempt legislation by Provisional Orders instead of by coming to Parliament and asking them to pass Measures introduced with the intention of carrying out their objects. He had already on previous occasions had occasion to point out the danger that was likely to result from such a course of procedure.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Purest of Dean that he had taken the Act of 1888 as he found it, and as that Act imposed certain duties and responsibilities upon him he had thought it his duty to exercise some discretion in these matters. He was not in the least anxious to add to the labours of the Local Government Board. His right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had not used one word of exaggeration in respect to the necessity of a considerable addition to the staff of the Local Government Board. When he had held his present appointment but a very few months he came to the conclusion that the. Department was greatly undermanned, and that it would be impossible for it to continue permanently in its present condition. Having had some experience of the Treasury in the course of his life, however, he thought it desirable that he should have a more matured

      415
      knowledge of the working of the Department before making any demands, and therefore some time ago he had caused an Inquiry to he made by a Committee into the whole question of its staff and organisation. As soon as the arrangements in regard to the holidays of the officials were concluded, that Inquiry would be proceeded with, and he hoped before Parliament met again after the Recess he should he able to say that there had been considerable improvement in the staff and organisation of the Department. ["Hear, hear!"] A very important question had been raised by hon. Members with regard to the Metropolitan Poor Law Schools, and the Report of the Committee which had recently been published in regard to them. He regretted that that Committee had not thrown more light on the constitution of the central authority which they recommended, and through which the reforms they desired were to be obtained, as that appeared to him to be the crux of the question. The Committee had dealt with almost every conceivable aspect of the question except that one. They had examined exhaustively into the merits and demerits of all the different systems of education of Poor Law children, and they had made a vast number of recommendations, and they had all signed the Report in favour of the central authority, but as to what that central authority was to be, not one of them seemed to be agreed. In fact, their recommendation upon that point was of a purely negative character. According to the recommendations of the Committee the central authority was not to be the Metropolitan Asylums Board, it was not to be by direct election; and when they asked what it was to be, the reply was an absolute blank; and yet that was the pivot on which the whole of the recommendations turned. If this Committee, after 18 months of consideration, were unable to offer a solution of this question, he thought hon. Members would hardly expect him, with so little time at his disposal, to put forward a definite policy in regard to it at that period of the Session. There was, no doubt, a variety of ways in which the central authority might be created. They might create an entirely new one, by legislation; they might adopt the Metropolitan Asylums Board;
      416
      or they might avail themselves of their powers under the Metropolitan Poor Act of 18G7. Then there was the recommendation, which was supported in many quarters, that a children's department of the Local Government Board should be established. As to which of these proposals was the best, or whether any central authority at all was desirable, he was not, at all events at present, prepared to pledge himself. It was, he confessed, becoming clear to him that there were some classes of children who could better be dealt with by a central authority, probably, than by any other means. He would take the case of those unfortunate little children who were suffering from disease, and especially from ophthalmia. There could be no question but that this was a most serious evil at the present time, and the Local Government Board, recognising this fact, had instructed Dr. Stevenson to examine and report on the eyes of all the children in the different institutions where pauper children were maintained. When they had received his Report they would be in a better position to consider the most effective mode of dealing promptly with this part of the question. It was stated in the Report of the Committee that in 1874 Dr. Nettleship reported that nearly 80 per cent. of the children at Han well had had ophthalmia, but he was informed that out of the 900 or 1,000 children there were at the present time only 50 had got the disease, and they were all of them in the ophthalmic school. If these results could be obtained on a small scale at a place like Hanwell, he saw no reason why it should not be done on a larger scale for all the children in the pauper schools of London. Possibly, also, the question of convalescent homes and their management might be dealt with advantageously in the same way. ["Hear, hear!"] There were other recommendations in the Report with which he cordially agreed, such as in regard to the question of aggregation, and he should certainly be unwilling to consent to the creation of any more of the great schools which were described as barrack schools. Personally he was struck by the advantages of the cottage homes, but whether they should be grouped or isolated required to be carefully considered. He had no doubt that good

      417
      work had been done by cottage homes which were grouped. Then there was another question raised by the Report, and that was the question of educational inspection. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee recommended that it should be transferred entirely to the Education Department, and with that proposal he should agree in principle. He hoped some arrangement might be made, but the question was not so simple as it seemed. There were many other matters referred to with which he concurred, but in regard to some of them he wished to utter a word of caution. There was naturally a sentimental feeling expressed with regard to what was called "the pauper taint," and the enormous advantage in after-life of getting rid of it. He quite sympathised with that view, but he thought it might be overdone. The Member for the Forest of Dean said something of those who had been paupers in early life taking to pauperism in after years, He had some interesting figures on that point. They were taken from a Return recently laid on the Table. The first was with regard to the number of adult inmates of workhouses and infirmaries in the Metropolis on May 30, 189g; the second showed the average daily number of children attending schools during the years ended Lady Day, 1875, 1885, and 1895. The numbers of these children were 8,000, 11,000, and 11,747. The third particular was the number of inmates on June 1, 1896, who had been educated in Poor Law schools and therefore, as some people held, must be imbued with the pauper taint. The number on May 30, 1896, was, roughly speaking, 38,000. Of these 38,000, how many had been educated in pauper schools? That was a very interesting question. ["Hear, hear!"] According to the Return of June 1 there were 435, but from this had to be deducted 232 who were suffering from infirmity, so that out of the total pauper adults the number was only 203. ["Hear!"]
      MR. HAZELLasked why the Return was limited to the last 30 years.
      MR. CHAPLINcould not say. The Return was moved for by the Member for Kensington, who probably asked for the information he desired to get. ["Hear, hear!"] These figures might not be conclusive, but they went far to
      418
      show that the children taught in the pauper schools were not necessarily affected by the pauper taint throughout the whole of their natural lives. ["Hear, hear!"] Indeed, it would be a most melancholy thing if it were so. The Report, however, made such a painful impression upon him that as soon as the legislative pressure of his Department abated he took the opportunity of seeing some of the schools for himself. [Cheers.] He took the utmost care in every case that his visit should be unexpected; so much so that on one occasion he had the greatest difficulty in getting in at all. [Laughter.] The impression made on his mind by personal inspection was very widely different from the impression made by the perusal of the Report, ["Hear, hear!"] He admitted that there was room for great improvement and great reform; but, even so, he was greatly surprised at what he saw after having read these Reports. There was the healthy appearance of the children. He saw nothing to confirm what he read as to the sluggish, sullen, dull appearance of the boys and their dislike of play. In the cricket ground he saw a number of promising young bowlers. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] With regard to their carelessness, obstinacy, and ignorance of common things, and a total absence of a notion of the value of money, when he arrived at the station he found two of the boys there. They readily answered his questions, and when he gave them 1d. each they had not the slightest difficulty in making their way to an automatic machine. [Cheers and laughter.] He did not find in the Report of the Committee any reference to the evidence of Miss Poole, the secretary to the Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants. Miss Poole quoted the statements of trained agents of the society to show that the school girls got the very best places, and kept their places better than other girls. They were stated to be more affectionate and docile, cleaner and neater. Their chief failing was stated to be temper. There was any amount of evidence to the same effect. It seemed to him there was a good deal to be said in favour of these children as well as against them. Even on this point there was a wide difference of opinion, and, so far as he had been

      419
      able to judge, he should certainly say the balance was rather in favour of the girls than against them. It must be remembered that pauper children were of different kinds. He had had the advantage of seeing the cottage homes at Banstead, and he was convinced that they were doing most admirable work, both for boys and girls. He had heard a good deal about the failure of industrial training; but he was very much struck by the admirable work done by some of the boys. Both in connection with this school and the girls' school at Sutton an immense demand existed for the services of the girls. Places were found for them without difficulty; and, indeed, the applications could not be met. The lady in charge of the girls' school at Sutton told him that last year she had had over 1,000 applications for girls as servants, though she was not able to supply more than 100 or 150. If these statements were true, surely that was very significant, as well as very satisfactory, for it would be absolutely contrary to all experience in any relation of life that there should be so great a demand for the services of these girls unless their education and bringing-up were satisfactory. He did not say this because he wanted in any way to disparage the Report of the Departmental Committee, but because he wanted to show that there were a good many sides to this question which had still to be considered. It was a very large and very important question, and a mistake in policy in dealing with it too hurriedly would, in his judgment, be a supreme misfortune. He fully realised the importance of the question, and it would receive his closest attention. With regard to the subject of boarding-out, he would go so far as to say that, subject to efficient supervision, he should regard it as a very important factor in the improvement of the lot of some of these children. But in all the circumstances, having endeavoured to put the case as fairly as he could, he thought he was justified in asking the Committee on this occasion to excuse him from either attempting to lay down a definite policy on the subject or of giving any more definite pledges than he had given. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. JAMES STUARTsaid he was sure the Committee
      420
      would not find fault with the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had approached the subject. He had dealt with it with a fair amount of sympathy, and with much reasonableness and caution. He, however, desired to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman a point that had scarcely been touched in the Debate. A great deal had been said as if Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis were a very backward set of people, and the Local Government Board had been urging them on. In some respects that picture was exactly the reverse of the truth. There were Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis who had been calling upon the Local Government Board to assist efforts which in that Debate had met with universal approval, and they had failed to secure that assistance up till now. What was immediately required was Departmental action rather than legislation. The particular reform to which he desired to draw attention was with respect to the inspection of the education in these schools. He would prove what he said as to Boards of Guardians in certain quarters of the Metropolis being in advance of the central authority. In 1889 a memorial was presented to the Local Government Board from guardians and managers of Poor Law schools representing various Metropolitan Boards, and the Committee would see in the Report of the Departmental Committee almost the very words and the very arguments used by those Boards of Guardians seven years ago. The memorial said:—
      "In the opinion of your memorialists it is desirable that the education in Poor Law schools should he transferred to the Education Department and be brought into harmony with the general elementary education of the country."
      And again:—
      "That while there is urgent necessity for the highest training and intelligence on the part of teachers in Poor Law schools, teachers with the highest qualification and training in elementary schools under the Education Department are deterred from seeking employment in the Poor Law schools by reason of their being removed from the cognisance of the Education Department and of their ceasing to act with the general body of elementary teachers and Her Majesty's school inspectors throughout the country."
      The memorial concluded:—
      "That the elementary education of children who are for a time maintained in Poor Law

      421
      schools, should he continuous as far as possible with the education they receive in Elementary Schools outside, and your memorialists therefore respectfully ask that your Board will be pleased to take such steps as may he deemed expedient for securing the assimilation of the system of education in Poor Law schools with that of elementary education throughout the country."
      In 1889 the Local Government Board objected to the change, and raised Departmental difficulties. We far as he could ascertain at the time, the Education Department had no objection to the change. He brought this question before the late Government, and the Education Department expressed their complete readiness to enter into the matter if the Local Government Board was ready; that it was the Local Government Board that was the stick-in-the-mud. He went to the Local Government Board, then presided over by Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who pointed out certain Departmental difficulties which he had never been really able to fathom. If they were going to have this urgent and practical reform postponed until they could get a new central Poor Law authority for the Metropolis, they might have to wait a very long time. He invited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what the Report said upon this particular reform. The Report picked out this particular reform, the transference of inspection to the Education Department, as a thing that should be done whatever happens. It said:—
      "One of the most effective means of improving the existing institutions of the places of education would he to complete the incorporation of the education of the Poor Law children into the general system of elementary instruction as administered by the Education Department."
      And a little further down, after a reference to the expediency of establishing a central authority for the general administration of the schools—that was the central authority which was criticised by the right hon. Gentleman—the Report proceeded:—
      "It will suffice to repeat hero that, whatever change may he made in that direction, the educational work of these schools should he brought under the supervision of the Education Department.
      It would be seen, therefore, that this particular recommendation was put by the Committee itself outside of the fundamental proposal of a new central authority
      422
      upon which there might very well be considerable difference of opinion; and further, they said there was no reason to fear any practical difficulty in giving effect to the recommendation. That being so, there ought to be no delay in carrying it out. In order to meet the Departmental difficulty which appeared to have arisen, the Commitee of Council on Education having expressed doubts as to the expediency of separating the educational from the other inspection of Poor Law schools, he suggested that the difficulty might be met in this way—that whore application was made by a Board of Guardians in order to have their schools put under the Education Department, and where the Local Government Board were satisfied that such application was justified, in those particular cases those schools should be put under the Education Department. That in itself would do a great deal to encourage the forward policy of guardians. The Board of Guardians of Shoreditch had repeatedly asked that this should be done, so that it was not always the Local Government Board that was making the running for backward Boards of Guardians, but Boards of Guardians were themselves occasionally hindered by the Local Government Board. This transference of inspection from the Local Government Board to the Education Department had, he reminded the House, been already carried out in the case of Board of Admiralty schools, and carried out with success. It would be a disgrace to their administration, to the Local Government Board as well as to the Education Department, if, with the facts he had brought out, the Departmental difficulty could not be arranged. Reference was made in the Report to schools in which he was personally interested—namely, the schools at Hornchurch under the Shoreditch Board of Guardians, and it would be seen that the results were compared with the other schools at Ilford. The comparison was to the detriment of Hornchurch—that was to say, the Poor Law schools, because there the children were not brought under the ordinary elementary education system of the country as the Ilford schools were. Surely it was a great misfortune that they were paying ratepayers' money for the schools at Hornchurch, and yet that they were

      423
      not able to bring them up to a high standard because they were under the wrong supervision and the wrong inspection. The Shoreditch Board did not want to make money by the change for which they asked, though they would be glad to have the payment depend upon the success of their schools, because that was the only lever by which they could bring the schools and the teachers up to the proper level. This was a practical point raised by the Boards of Guardians in 1889—nay, since 1884, for the Elementary Education Commission presided over by Lord Cross brought the subject to notice. The primary object of the Poor Law schools was to educate the children, and the education of these schools and the other schools ought to be in common, because the children in both sets of schools had to fight the same battle of life. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give some more definite assurance than he had yet done on this point of education to which he had been calling attention.
      MR. A. J. MUNDELLAsaid that the Committee had enjoyed hearing one of the most interesting Debates of the Session. He was prepared to endorse all that had been said by the hon. Member for Leicester, and to support the appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for Shoreditch to bring the schools under the Education Department. The point, indeed, was at one time all arranged and settled, in 1885, between Sir John Hibbert and himself. It was an enormous loss to the children that they were not placed under the Education Department, and brought into contact with other children outside their own schools. The Report of the Departmental Committee, of which he was chairman, had to pass through a severe fire of criticism outside, and he had heard all that could be said in the House on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman should not forget that the Committee was appointed by the Local Government Board, and there were members on that Committee who had unique experience on all these questions. The right hon. Gentleman quoted with great approval what he saw at Sutton, but he forgot that the Rev. Brooke Lambert had signed the Report, and the reverend gentleman was not only chairman of the
      424
      Sutton Schools, but the chairman of the Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants. The right hon. Gentleman, he felt sure, would have to base his future legislation on the lines of this Report. After all the criticisms which had been passed on the Report, and after six months of deliberation, the Committee were prepared to stand by every line of the Report; they did not recede from one word of it. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a statement about idle boys whom he saw when visiting an institution; but he reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the words of Dr. Brydges, a most distinguished officer of the Local Government Board, who said that it was quite impossible from casual observation during a visit to a school to arrive at a true estimate of its condition and organisation. As to ophthalmia, he commended the two chapters in the Report on that subject to the attention of the Committee. Every word on the subject had been carefully scanned, almost written, by one of the ablest oculists in Europe, Mr. Nettleship, who was on the Committee, and who had made ophthalmia and the condition of the Poor Law schools in respect of ophthalmia a long study. Matters were undoubtedly better than they were, though there ought not to be even 50 cases of ophthalmia at Hanwell. One way of getting rid of ophthalmia was to scatter the children in small homes or board them out, to got rid of the aggregation of children in the same atmosphere and leading the same conventional life. He was glad to believe that no more large barrack schools would be built, and that there would be no enlargement of the existing barrack schools. They ought to be gradually disused. The Committee had found in the same wards children suffering from ophthalmia and others suffering from ringworm. Of course they infected one another. Ophthalmia, let the Committee remember, was a complaint which recurred in a child's after life, and a man suffering from it might be unable to obtain employment. In fact, the disease often brought its victims to poverty, misery, and ruin. On the subject of boarding out, he agreed that cottage homes were a great improvement on barrack schools. There were, however, some disadvantages in the English cottage-home system. The system was carried out better in Scotland, where

      425
      84 per cent. of the pauper children were boarded out. They were brought up with the children of the neighbourhood, attended the ordinary schools, and were absorbed in the population. To board out a child cost only £13 a year, whereas the cost of a child in a barrack school was estimated at £29. A very urgent matter was the question, what ought to be done with the people known as "ins and outs?" There were parents who dragged their children from fair to racecourse, and who went into the workhouse in the intervals. Some of them went into the workhouse every month, some every fortnight, and some every week. Mr. Lockwood, a Local Government Board Inspector, mentioned eleven families who led this kind of life. One of these families, in which there were three children, were "in and out" 62 times between October 3, 1893, and November 19, 1894. This class of people was seen nowhere else in Europe, and their mode of existence was a scandal and stain upon our civilisation. Only last Saturday, in the richest part of London, he had seen a woman with a baby in her arms and three children dragging at her skirts. They were simply bundles of rags. Such exhibitions of misery and squalor could not be seen anywhere else than in England, and the reason why such sights were common here was that we allowed the Poor Law to be abused. Parents went into the workhouse for a few days, and then left with their children to attend race meetings and fairs. What could be expected of these poor children when they grew up? He urged the Committee to give careful attention to the Report which had been published. If it had done nothing else it had already had good results in drawing attention of the Local Government Board, and of Guardians, to the present deplorable state of things. Nothing short of the recommendations of the Committee would be of any real avail. He thought that the President of the Local Government Board, who he was glad to say regarded the Report with some sympathy, would find that it must be adopted en gros.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYbegged to remind the Committee that the discussion of Supply could not extend beyond 10 o'clock. He, there-
      426
      fore, hoped that the Committee would consent to finish the discussion of this particular Vote now. There were, he knew, many hon. Members who desired to ask questions concerning some of the remaining Votes.
      SIR JOSEPH SAVORYsaid he wished to bring before the President of the Local Government Board a grievance felt by the Borough of West Ham. He thought the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman would feel great sympathy with the borough in the exceptionally heavy rates it had to bear at the present time, which were certain to increase in the future. The authorities were extremely anxious to exercise economy wherever they could, and in December last they applied to the Local Government Board to give them permission to appoint overseers under Section 33 of the Parish Councils Act of 1894. That section gave the Board power to make an Order conferring on a council any powers, duties or liabilities of overseers. The Borough of West Ham applied to the Board to give them this power in order that they might effect an economy in the collection of the rates. The Board had not actually declined to do this, but they so far withheld their decision. The matter was of very great urgency and importance, as notice had been given to the poor rate collectors to determine their office with a view to new appointments being made at fixed salaries, and these notices would expire on December 29th of this year. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give the Borough of West Ham the privilege to which they were entitled.
      *COLONEL MELLORcalled attention to the fact that the town of Radcliffe, which he represented, had applied to the Local Government Board for a loan of £6,800 to enable them to construct some new intercepting sewers, to provide for a new urban district which would add 5,000 population to the district and bring its numbers up to 25,000. The Local Government Board refused its consent to the loan unless the local authority purchased fifteen additional acres of land for surface filtration purposes. In Lancashire they had an authority called

      427
      the Mersey and Irwell Joint Committee, which was appointed by the County Councils of Cheshire and Lancashire under a special Act of Parliament. The officials of that body examined the effluent of the Lancashire towns periodically, and published a report. It was shown by the report that the effluent of Radcliffe was one of the very best in the whole county. Sir H. Roscoe was the chemist who dealt with the matter, and he applied simple but effective tests. By his tests Manchester came first on the list, Eccles second, and Radcliffe third. Their effluent was described as clear and colourless, and about as perfect an effluent as could be produced. With such a report as that, issued under such authority, and by such an eminent chemist as Sir H. Roscoe, it was too late in the day for the Local Government Board to tell them they could not purify the sewage unless they bought land for surface filtration. The land which was recommended by the Local Government Board to be bought for that purpose was in every way unsuitable. It rested on the coal measures, the neighbourhood was honeycombed with colliery workings,—subsidences were constantly taking place,—it was some 80 feet higher than the outfall works, 1,200,000 gallons of sewage would have to be raised to that height every 24 hours and conveyed some 600 feet in pipes; a costly installation of steam engines and steam boilers would have to be laid down in duplicate, and to do this and to purchase the land, estimated to cost £6,000, would involve an extra expenditure estimated at £30,000. This would impose on the district a load of debt which would hang round the necks of the people an increased weight of taxation, and would probably do a great deal to crush the industries of the locality and add to the expense of the production of their manufactures, so that competition with foreign goods would become increasingly difficult. The Local Authority would undertake that if the loan was granted, and if they should hereafter fail to satisfy the requirements of the Board with regard to the sewage effluent, then they would face the expenditure which was now attempted to be forced upon them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow them to have the loan on that understanding. ["Hear, hear."]
      MR. FREDERICK CAWLEYwished to call attention to the fact that the District Council of Prestwich required a loan of £1,600 to defray the cost of making a sewer which was greatly needed for new property. An application was made to the Local Government Board, who sent down an inspector to make the usual local inquiry. No opposition was offered, and the inspector was satisfied with the plans, and indeed no exception could be taken to the council's proposals, but the Local Government Board refused to sanction the loan, on the ground that the arrangements of the council for dealing with the sewage at the outfall were not satisfactory. They required that, in addition to the precipitation tanks which were now in operation and a filter bed which was in course of construction, a large area of land should be acquired for service filtration. This the council were of opinion was a stipulation which was wholly unreasonable. The loan was refused, not on account of any objection to the works, but on a purely theoretical objection to the council's system, largely adopted in Lancashire, and one which was approved by the Mersey and Irwell Joint Committee. This system, which was that of precipitation and filtration, was deemed the best by many experts, but the question was whether the Local Government Board were right in saying that one system of dealing with sewage, and one only, was the right system, whatever the formation of the land, and whatever the other difficulties of adopting that system. He did not think it was right, and he wished the President of the Local Government Board to consider the subject with a view to a remedy of the grievance.
      *MR. EDWIN LAWRENCEsaid that he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was not in his place, because he wished to express his surprise at the extraordinary credulity which the right hon. Gentleman displayed in believing statements which had been made to him in contradiction to the Report of experts, whose assistance had been called in to advise the Department on the subject. It was impossible that one visit paid by the right hon. Gentleman to these Poor Law

      429
      schools enabled him to understand the matter. The Report that had been drawn up by the experts was true.
      MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS (Hants,)wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question with regard to the election of Parish Councillors. Under the Local Government Act it was necessary that before a poll could be had at the election of Parish Councillors, the poll must be demanded by five parish electors, otherwise the parish was not to be put to the trouble and expense of an election. The Local Government Board, however, by their circular, had set aside the provision of the Act, and directed that a poll should be had in the event of a single parish elector demanding it. The consequence was that under the circular one man had the power to put the parish to the trouble and expense of an election. This matter had been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman by Questions that had been put to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the ground that the operation of the direction in the circular had created great ill-feeling. He hoped that the hon. Member the Secretary to the Local Government Board would not by legislation, because that was not required, but by a statement of opinion in that House, put this matter right.
      SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that last year he had brought the subject of the greater classification of paupers and workhouses under the notice of the Government, and he should like to know whether his proposals in those directions could be carried out without recourse to legislation. He highly approved the circular since issued by the Department with those objects, for the people expected that something would be done quickly to better the condition of the deserving poor, both by pensions and by workhouse and other administration.
      *THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that the subject to which the hon. Member for South Islington had called his attention was one which involved a mere question of administration and the various proposals could be carried into effect without further legislation. With regard to the question of the number of
      430
      parish electors who were entitled to demand a poll at a parish council election, he might say that next year no regulation would be made and the provision of the Act would be interpreted by the Chairman of the parish meeting. ["Hear, hear!"] He would see what could be done in order to carry out the views of the hon. Member for West Ham. The question of the Radcliffe sewage was not very easily dealt with. The hon. and gallant Member for the Radcliffe Division of Lancashire had referred to what he called the cast-iron rule of the Local Government Board in this matter, but it was the duty of the Board to see that in regard to the sanctioning of loans the law was not broken. The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act rendered it an offence to discharge sewage into any river, and the question the Board had to decide in this case was whether the proposals of the local authority, upon which they asked for the sanction of a loan, would comply with the law. The Board had recognised the advance of science in this matter, and that sewage could be treated, and was being treated, by chemical means with very good effect, but in this case the Board had come to a decision on the advice of their chief engineer, who was sent down to Radcliffe to investigate the question, even after the local inquiry had been held. The report of both the experts was to the effect that the purchase of land was necessary, and that the scheme could not be safely carried out by chemical means alone, and that the sewage would have to be distributed over land. In the face of these two distinct reports, it was not possible foe the Local Government Board to act upon anything else, but as the case had been pressed upon the Board he would undertake to look into it, and see if it were possible to do anything. Another question that had been raised was as to the date of parish meetings, which had been fixed for the 9th March and the 20th of March. The true remedy for this state of things was to alter the Act of 1894, and he did not think that any opposition would be offered to a Bill brought in for that purpose. The difficulty did not arise out of any action of the Local Government Board, but out of the Act of Parliament itself. The Local Government Board would do their best to

      431
      obviate any difficulty in the future. He might take that opportunity of stating that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had been compelled to retire from the House by indisposition.
      MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that on behalf of the hon. Member for West Carmarthen he desired to call attention to the illegal appointment of a highway surveyor by the District Council. The Committee was aware that the Local Government Board exercised a dispensing power in matters of this kind, often beneficially, but this case appeared to be hardly one that ought to be passed over. These people, although they knew perfectly well that they had no right to appoint a new officer, did so in defiance of the law. If the Local Government Board did not exercise its authority in a case of this kind, he wished to ask in what cases it would exercise its authority?
      MR. PRYCE-JONEScalled attention to the case of a man who suffered from an infirmity, who received 3s. a week from a benefit society, and was not, in consequence, relieved as he should have been. He regretted that in many instances only partial relief was given instead of full relief. This man should have been allowed to live outside the workhouse and have his liberty while having his relief, but the Board of Guardians treated him in exactly the same way as the man who had not exercised any thrift in order to provide for his old age. He wished, also, to call attention to the case of a man with a large family and a very small wage, who was actually called upon to help to maintain his father and mother in the workhouse. He congratulated the Local Government Board and the Government upon the steps which they had taken to bring about the classification of paupers, and he hoped that they would now turn their attention to the classification of workhouses. In
      432
      Montgomeryshire a considerable saving, and greater efficiency would, he believed, result from reducing the number of workhouses in the county. He hoped, also, that the Local Government Board would show their sympathy in providing trained nurses in workhouses, and in giving some useful employment to those who had to live in workhouses. He regretted that this important Department should have to be discussed at the tail end of the Votes in Supply, as, in view of its having to deal with workhouses and the poor he thought it was the most important Department in the State. Up to the present our poor houses had had no direct representation in that House.
      MR. CAWLEYthought that his remarks had been misunderstood. Borrowing powers were refused for making a sewer for drains to new houses. The loan was not required for sewage purposes at all, but for new drains to new property. It was refused by the Local Government Board because they were only willing to grant a loan when the scheme was accompanied by land filtration.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLreplied that the Local Government Board could not consider the question of sewerage apart from the question of the disposal of the sewage. But he would undertake to look into the whole matter. The case which had been raised by an hon. Member in regard to a member of a friendly society who received 3s. a week, as outdoor relief was, he considered, one for the discretion of the Guardians. In regard to the second point, that was not a matter either for the Local Government Board or the Board of Guardians, but would involve legislation. The details of the case mentioned by the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs had been correctly stated by the hon. Member; the highway authority dismissed the surveyor when they had no legal right to do so; the County Council, which alone had the power of dismissal, declined to confirm the act, but the highway

      433
      authority appointed another man, to whom they paid money for the purpose of repairing the roads. When the auditor went round he declined to sanction the payment, and the matter came before the Local Government Board. The Board took the view that this money had, at all events, been expended for public purposes, and that there had been no attempt at fraud, and, although the highway authority were recalcitrant and had acted illegally, they thought it right, in view of this circumstance, to remit the surcharge. The appointment had been set right, and the matter was not likely to rise again.
      *MR. HAZELLasked leave, in view of the sympathetic speech of the right hon. President, to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question put and agreed to.

      CLASS V.
      2. £237,318, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Services.
      *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he had to express, on behalf of the Chambers of Commerce, and the commercial public generally, the great obligations they were under to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to Sir Henry Bergne and his staff for the energy they had thrown into the administration of the Department. Last year he was critical and suggestive, though appreciative, and drew attention to the necessity of more Attaches abroad, and he was glad to know that the number had been increased by six or seven for Europe and Asia. When the subject was raised last year they were told that the members of the Embassies ought to do this work, without adding to the staff. While they acknowledged the good will of the whole Diplomatic Service, and that they did a great deal for the commerce of the country, they considered that they had not the necessary
      434
      training. This was a matter which should be in the hands of practical experts, and those who attended to these matters should be able to give experienced information to the traders of this country. He had urged that these Attaches should possess commercial qualifications and that it was essential that they should be what they ought to be—the heads of outposts and intelligence departments of British commerce in other countries. At the same time, he urged that they should still be increased in number, as had been done by Germany in the United States, and in the amount of remuneration. He thought it was said last year that the commercial classes in this country did not read the Consular Reports. He took that opportunity of saying that he had constantly impressed on their attention the vast importance of reading these Reports. They were mines of commercial information, and they owed a great debt of gratitude to the Consuls for this source of international commercial information, which now reached them quicker than hitherto. There was only one objection, and that arose from the very mass of the reports received in hundreds at one time. He thus found it almost impossible to go through them. He would express a hope that in addition to the index, which was an excellent one by Mr. Maycock, there should be a summary printed, for a great deal of the matter was of no general value at all, while other portions of it were of infinite benefit. Again, some of it should be grouped in juxtaposition with the cognate contents of other reports. He also urged last year that their Diplomatic Consular Service might render more active assistance to British traders. He knew of one case where they had been compelled to appeal to the Ambassador of a friendly Power, but he acknowledged much assistance from both the present and late Under Secretaries. In looking at the Estimates he was glad to see that there was an increase by a few thousands,

      435
      especially for China and Japan. He also urged the importance of their interests in the far East, and congratulated the Government on the opening of the West river in China. That river, flowing into the China Sea from the districts of south-west China, formed an alternative route to Yunnan which was of great value, and better than the French routes by the Mekong or Red Rivers. This was a matter for great congratulation to this country and to the Government. They were just now receiving the most distinguished and progressive of Chinese Statesmen, who was most willing to extend our trade to that vast empire. He hoped he would take back with him the assurance of a reciprocal feeling, and that they would take care to ascertain the wants of the Chinese people, and give them goods which were most beneficial to them, and thus open and retain new fields and markets. He was glad to see that there had been an increase of their Consuls in China and Japan. There was, however, need for some revision, particularly with regard to Spain and Turkey, which were over-Consulled; and he urged that there should be an increase in France, Germany, the Balkans, the United States, and the Far East. And, our Consuls ought, wherever practicable, to be British subjects. He could not but be struck with the fact that there was not a single Consul in Venezuela, where we had so many difficulties, even at Caracas. He acknowledged the much greater co-operation and consultation of the Department with Chambers of Commerce, as was so much the case abroad, and, when referred to as to the revision of the Consular Regulations, as to the international exhibitions and other matters, the Chambers had gladly rendered the Government all the assistance in their power. He would like in this connection to acknowledge the useful State Paper issued from the Colonial Office. If through the Colonial Office we could ascertain what we could
      436
      advantageously supply to the colonies, and how they could reciprocally deal with us, that mutual trade, whatever might or might not come of commercial union, could not fail to be beneficial to them and to ourselves. Already this had been followed out by patterns and samples being sent from the Foreign and Colonial Offices to the London Chamber of Commerce, stored for inspection, and circulated throughout the country, and which he hoped was the nucleus of a commercial museum—of which we ought to have more than one—such as existed at Brussels and other centres. At the Commercial Museum at Frankfort he had seen all the chief products of our Colonies exhibited, with prices, etc., for the guidance of German traders in their growing competition with us. Trade, with one exception, was undoubtedly better in this country, probably than it had been since 1890 or 1891. But statistics showed that not only relatively, but in some cases absolutely, there was a depreciation of British trades. There were certain facts which we could not disguise from ourselves. There was the fact that the foreign Governments gave subsidies to their steamship lines, that many of them gave bounties for the building of ships, and to the productions of their own countries, and there were other forms in which aid was rendered by Governments to their own trades. They had also to deal with the fact that hostile tariffs, whatever otherwise might be their effect, undoubtedly restricted our trade in dealing with those countries. These were difficult subjects to deal with, and he had not seen any very adequate remedies proposed so far. On the other hand we had great trade advantages. His own view was that the greatest of these was our Free Trade system. If we enjoyed nothing else from it we had favoured-nation treatment in all parts of the world, and he should be among the very last to propose a material departure from our present fiscal system. There

      437
      was also the fact that we had accumulated capital; that we had great hereditary skill on the part of our workmen; that we had a climate which made this country the best workshop in the world, and that we had an organised system of communication which practically united us with the most distant parts of the world. But there were some things which did not depend upon legislation or fiscal systems, which our traders could do for themselves, and which he thought the Government of the country could legitimately and usefully aid them in doing. His experience told him that the aid could be of the very greatest advantage—although he did not say our traders should rely solely upon it, and should not continue that enterprise which had marked and made the commercial history of this country. One of the first things was that we should always get the earliest possible knowledge of what other nations were doing, and it was through our Diplomatic and Consular Services, the eyes as it were of the country, that we should best be able to obtain information of where we were being competed with; what were the causes of the competition, so far as it affected us; what new lines of action we might take, what new markets could be resorted to, and what possible developments might take place in our commerce throughout the world. He was by no means unfavourable to the suggestion made recently by an eminent Statesman that it might be well to appoint a small Commission for the purpose of dealing with that vast mass of our Consular and other special Reports, and putting the information into a form that would indicate what were the chief difficulties with which we had to deal, and what might be the best remedies for the purpose of overcoming them. In some other respects, information of vast advantage could be given to the traders of this country. He did not hesitate to say that in the scientific bases of many of our trades, we were becoming very greatly behind many other nations.
      438
      They had only to refer to the Report made by the Iron Trades Delegation to Germany, in order to see that with regard to the newest processes and methods, there were some respects in which we had a great deal to learn. This pointed to the necessity for education, especially scientific and technical education, and he hoped we would obtain from our Consuls and from other sources much more detailed information of what had been done and was doing in other countries. It was wise to be taught by the enemy. The enemy could teach us a great deal that we ought to know. Notably, that in some of their manufacturing works the most skilled scientists were employed in much larger numbers than here, e.g., in one single one there were 67 Doctors of Science permanently at work, in another, near Mannheim, upwards of one hundred chemists; and that even now, as at the time of our Technical Commission, we were exporting refuse and other products to be treated scientifically in Germany and to be re-exported to us, instead of which we might, with bettor educational conditions, do the work here and give employment to our workpeople. The manufacture of glue was a case in point, and here happily, as with the aniline dyes, we were improving, but the Consuls told us of much we had still to grasp, both of facts and examples, and especially of the restrictive effect in our foreign trade of our obsolete and isolated system of weights and measures. But, while he invited in the very strongest terms the assistance of the State, which was able to render help of the most reliable character, and should be constantly on the alert for the benefit of the trade of the country, he hoped that lessons would be learned from the Consular Reports and otherwise, which would go to show traders the necessity of being themselves also on the alert, and the wisdom of being able, by a knowledge of the newest developments of science, to rapidly direct capital and

      439
      interest from one branch of manufacture and workmanship into another. Thus the reduction of economic friction was one chief value of technical education, and our traders must also grasp the need of taking more trouble as to the package and preservation of their goods; of engaging educated commercial travellers; of business organisation and co-operation, especially, as in Denmark, in relation to agriculture, for this alone could redeem it from its depression, as he had urged years ago and often since, and in achieving and applying this knowledge for the people a highly effective Diplomatic and Consular service would prove itself the greatest blessing to the nation.
      *SIR C. DILKEsaid the practical moral he had always drawn from the remarks of the hon. Member was that on the whole, in the past, the must important Consular posts of this country had not always been filled by the men most fitted to fill them. There was, perhaps, a tendency towards improvement in this respect, but still there were a great number of very important Consular posts filled by men who had not the knowledge of tongues and acquaintance with trade which enabled them to compete with scientific Consuls of the new type. There were two matters to which he desired to draw attention on this Vote. The Vote contained the salary of our principal officer on the Congo, and he should like to ask, without going into the question of the recent trial, whether it was possible to regain for British subjects throughout the Congo, the Consular jurisdiction which we temporarily gave up. The matter did not only concern the older Congo State. It also concerned the territory leased to the King of the Belgians by us. That territory adjoined our Uganda Protectorate. There was also the territory south-east of Katanja district, where the Congo State came in contact with our Central African possessions, and in both these districts there would undoubtedly be a
      440
      good many British subjects, and a considerable amount of British trade. He believed that when we recognised the Congo State we surrendered our jurisdiction, and he wished to know whether that was done once for all and for all time, or whether circumstances might make it possible for us to revert to our original Consular jurisdiction in the Congo State. It would be remembered that, when the lease was granted to the Congo State, the Congo State guaranteed to us in return a strip of territory to the north and west of Tanganyika as a road. Germany caused the Congo State to denounce that treaty, and we did not obtain that road, and it was a question whether we should not, therefore, declare that that which we gave as compensation for this right we should now resume for ourselves. With regard to Korea, he asked whether the Russian sailors were still ashore on the peninsula, and whether Her Majesty's Government were engaged in any negotiations there, or whether they were treating the state of things in Korea as a matter to be settled between Russia, Japan, and China.
      *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORRE CURZON, Lancashire, Southport),in reply, thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Islington for the generous tribute he had paid to the Foreign Office. He also thanked him for the aid which the great commercial associations of which he was the spokesman had always given to that Department. It seemed right there should be this frank and happy co-operation between the Government and those independent organisations—["hear, hear!"]—which from their constitution were well fitted to represent the commercial opinion of the country. With regard to the proper qualifications for commercial Attaches, no doubt they must be men competent by experience and capacity to handle commercial subjects, but the question of salary was also

      441
      one of importance, not so much from the point of view of the individual as from the point of view of the public service. Now, in a great many foreign countries, commercial Attachés, to be of real use, must be men who were on good terms with Ministers, heads of Departments, and persons holding responsible positions, and with the heads of great commercial firms. For that kind of work men were wanted of certain social position, able to observe certain social amenities, and to sustain the credit attaching to them as British representatives in an adequate manner. More particularly was this the case in Germany and some other great countries on the Continent, and he would suggest to his hon. Friend that there were in reality involved in the work of a Commercial Attaché two separate classes of functions. There was, on the one hand, the duty imposed upon him to secure early and accurate information, to exercise whatever influence he legitimately could in favour of British commercial interests, and to prepare reports. That was a sort of work for which they required a very superior man occupying a good position. On the other hand, there was the work of more directly pushing British wares; and in this connection he might be permitted to suggest that much more might be done by commercial associations as well as by private firms in sending out to foreign countries men of that description. There was an increasing need for commercial travellers on the Continent—["hear, hear!"]—and in every part of the world. The State could not turn its commercial Attachés into commercial travellers. The latter were essentially the forerunners of private enterprise, and if his hon. Friend would use his great influence in pressing upon the Chambers for whom he so often spoke, the duty of sending out commercial travellers who knew the language as well as their business, he would add one more to the many services he had already rendered to British trade in
      442
      this country. As to the question of reports, he quite felt that in many cases those commercial reports were too long. What they wanted was to get the information condensed and put in a businesslike form. Excerpts from the present commercial reports, however, appeared almost daily in the Press and attracted considerable attention, while, as regards matters in them which were liable to be overlooked, there was the Board of Trade Journal, which gave to commercial circles information of a very valuable character, put in a shape which was both concise and to the purpose. Stress had been laid upon the obligation that should lie upon British Consuls to assist British trade. On that point the instructions of the Foreign Office were definite and clear; but it was only fair to those gentlemen to remember that Great Britain being a shipping country to at least five or six times the extent of any other country in the world, the time and attention of our Consuls were enormously occupied by shipping matters. It was a little hard that a Consul at some great commercial port, whose whole time was taken up with consular duties, should be expected to bestow almost undivided attention on the commercial aspect of his duties also. That marked the great difference between a British Consul and a German or American Consul. ["Hear, hear!"] What had they to do in respect of shipping as compared with a British Consul? And whilst on the one hand it might sometimes happen that individul Consuls, oppressed with consular duties, showed an indifference to the commercial aspect of their work, on the other hand it sometimes occurred that commercial firms and individuals were a little exacting in supposing that the whole time of the Consul ought to be devoted to pushing their particular interests or supplying them with the information they desired. With regard to the better distribution of Consuls and the excess of Consular representation

      443
      in parts of the world where their services were not required, he could only say that from his experience in the Foreign Office it was almost as difficult to abolish posts as to create them—[laughter]—and the Minister who undertook to reduce an establishment, however much in harmony such a course might be with the dictates of economy, would not make his lot a happy one. He thought, however, that the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman was well worthy of attention, and he should be happy to give it his attention. As to whether a Royal Commission was needed to inquire into British trade, he hesitated to give an opinion on the point, because Royal Commissions had too often been the means of shelving the questions they had been appointed to inquire into. This, of course, was not always the case, because they obtained the benefit of expert evidence; but supposing a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the alleged decline of British trade, and supposing they found that it was largely due to the fact that the working classes in foreign countries were compelled to work for longer hours and for lower wages, he did not think that this result would carry them one step forward in recovering the jeopardised position of this country. Our fiscal system was fixed; our labour system was constantly being modified in the interests of the workmen, and not in the direction which seemed to prevail in foreign countries. As to whether it was possible for the Government to recover the consular jurisdiction in the Congo Free State, which a few years ago had been surrendered, he had to tell the right hon. Baronet that he thought it was possible. The surrender was not once for all; but this was a matter to which he could not, without consultation with others, give a reply now, because the question must depend on our power of exercising the re-assumed responsibility, and also on the action of other Powers, as well as on general political considerations. As to
      444
      Korea and the state of affairs there, it was true that a body of Russian sailors were still in Seoul, but their number had been considerably reduced. The King had not yet gone back to his palace, but efforts were being made to induce him to take that step. As soon as he could be provided with a guard in whom he could place reliance, the King might be persuaded to return. The Government were not engaged in any negotiations with regard to Korea. They had an interest in that country, but it was an interest secondary in character to that which directly neighbouring Powers must feel.
      *MR. JOHN BURNSreferred to allegations made in the newspapers with reference to one or two consular officials at Constantinople. One or two of these gentlemen, instead of occupying their time in commercial and shipping business, had sufficient time to devote to private commercial undertakings, which had caused comment in newspapers here as well as in the Levant. He should like to see our Consular Service above reproach to the same extent as our judiciary at home and abroad. He asked that these gentlemen should be asked to abstain from land and building society speculations—transactions which had involved them in a considerable amount of disrepute.
      *MR. CURZONsaid the question had already occupied a great deal of their time at the Foreign Office, and he agreed that the scandals at Constantinople and squalid and disreputable dispute brought discredit on the Consular Court in that city. The matter had been in litigation for some time, and it was hoped to clear up the affair soon by sending out a Judge to settle the case and make a special report.
      *MR. JOHN BRIGGsaid that, though the Consular Reports fell into the hands of different Chambers of Commerce, the members felt that they were not in sufficiently close connection with the Foreign

      445
      Office. He thought that if the Foreign Office could offer some inducement to the Chambers of Commerce to take up the question of asking from the Consuls more details of the different trades, and to form deputations to send abroad to inquire into the causes from which trades were suffering, something valuable might be achieved. Commercial and manufacturing men wanted to know the qualities and more details of the kinds of goods sent abroad by our foreign competitors; and the Foreign Office might give access to the Consuls in the various ports and help the deputations to obtain information on arrival at the different places. If out-of-pocket expenses could also be paid the reports obtained might be made public property for the benefit of all.
      *MR. CURZONsaid that the Blackburn Chamber of Commerce had itself very liberally organised an expedition to make investigations in Western China and Yunnan. The Foreign Office, he was glad to say, had been able to do a good deal to assist them. The Department had given introductions to the gentlemen selected for the mission, and a British Consul had been specially detached to act as cicerone to the party. The presence of that official afforded an almost certain guarantee of the success of the mission. The Foreign Office could not undertake to pay the expenses of missions of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be likely to view any undertaking of that kind with approval.
      SIR GEORGE OSBORNE MORGANasked that Members should be supplied with the reports on the trade of foreign countries as soon as the press. At present these reports appeared in the newspapers at least three or four weeks before they got into the hands of Members of Pariliament.
      *MR. CURZONsaid that the right hon. Baronet could assure his constituents that the Queen's printers would be pleased, for a very small sum, to supply them with the reports which they wanted.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS VI.
      3. Motion made and Question proposed:—
      "That a Hum not exceeding £271,028, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
      446
      necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Superannuation, Retired, and Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, and for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."
      DR. CLARKcalled attention to the pensions of £84 granted to the three Sheriffs who were members of the late Scotch Board of Supervision. These gentlemen, he said, held judicial offices, and were also allowed to practise as barristers in the Supreme Court. They were in the prime of life, and two out of the three were only connected with the Board of Supervision for two or three years. He protested against this subsidy of £84 to each of these three gentlemen, and to mark his disapproval he begged to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
      MR. HANBURYexplained that these pensions were granted by the late Government. He admitted that, primâ facie, there might be something in the hon. Member's objection, but he understood that the late Government had no option in the matter, and that the pensions had been granted under the law. If the hon. Member wanted any further information he should be happy to give it to him at the Report stage.
      DR. CLARKremarked that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could really be responsible for these pensions. It was now clear that the late wicked Government were responsible. These three gentlemen were drawing at the present time official salaries ranging from £800 to £1,000 a year, and in addition they could earn fees as barristers. They certainly ought not to receive compassionate allowances, because they had been ornamental and semi-active members of the late Board of Supervision. He regretted that the Members of the late Government were not present to answer for their conduct in this matter.
      *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said that what had been said was quite right and proper. The legal members of the late Board of Supervision used to give most assiduous attention to the business of the Board. He had himself once been a legal member of the Board, and all he received was £150 a year. For that he

      447
      attended a meeting nearly every week, the meeting lasting over an hour, and gave several opinions every week. He hardly thought an English lawyer would fulfil such duties for £150. The real point was this. These three gentlemen were members of the Board ex-officio, and the figures of their salaries as Sheriffs were considered in connection with what they would receive as members of the Board. They were appointed to their sheriffdoms upon the understanding that they would get so much money a year. In consequence of the reconstruction of the Board, the work they performed upon it was taken from them, although they were quite willing to continue doing it.
      MR. J. CALDWELLurged that this was not a case of a man being deprived of an office which was his whole means of subsistence. These sheriffdoms were really stepping-stones to the Bench, and the position of these gentlemen on the Supervision Board was merely a perquisite of their office. They were now relieved of their office on that Board, and would no longer be required to give the opinions they formerly had to give, and they would really be the gainers by the change that had taken place.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 146.—(Division List, No. 399.)
      Original Question put and agreed to.
      4. £3,100 to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Bund Pensions, agreed to.
      5. £31,089, to complete the sum for Trustee Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency.
      DR. CLARKsaid this Vote had often been divided against. It would constantly increase, because the value of money was constantly decreasing and he protested against the House of Commons beng called upon to make up the deficiency.
      Vote agreed to.
      6. £822, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other allowances, Great Britain.—Agreed to.

      CLASS VII.
      7. Motion made and Question put:—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £8,740, 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 other Expenses (including certain Grants in Aid) of Temporary Commissions and Committees, and Special Inquiries."
      DR. CLARKpointed out that some Commissions had been six or seven years in existence. The Vaccination Commission was an instance of this. They had been sitting year after year, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would see that some limitation was put to their sittings.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 45.—(Division List, No. 400.)
      And, it being after Ten of the clock, the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 27th February last, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the outstanding Votes in the Committee of Supply, as followeth:—
      8. £2,449, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses.
      9. £7,602, for Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund.

      CLASS I.
      10. £41,375, to complete the sum for Harbours in the United Kingdom and Lighthouses Abroad under the Board of Trade.

      CLASS II.
      11. Motion made, and Question put,
      "That a sum, not exceeding' £11,663, 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 Lords."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 54.—(Division List, No. 404.)
      12. £22,036, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.
      13. £61,000, to complete the sum for Treasury and Subordinate Departments.
      14. £29,400, to complete the sum for Colonial Office.
      15. £32,500, to complete the sum for Mercantile Marine Fund (Grant in Aid).
      16. £12, to complete the sum for Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
      17. Motion made, and Question put,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £35,529, 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 Board of Agriculture, and to defray the repayable Expenses to be incurred in matters of Inclosure and Land Improvement, and to pay certain Grants in Aid."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 168; Noes, 54.—(Division List, No. 402.)
      18. £28,869, to complete the sum for Charity Commission.
      19. £14,918, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.
      20. £13,800, to complete the sum for Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, etc., Office.

      CLASS III.
      21. £426,290, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.
      22. £126,746, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.

      CLASS IV.
      23. £16,154, to complete the sum for Scientific Investigation, etc.
      24. £64,179, to complete the sum for Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales.
      25. £10, to complete the sum for London University.

      CLASS V.
      26. Motion made, and Question put,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £104,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come
      450
      in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Grants in Aid of Expenses connected with the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 44.—(Division List, No. 403.)
      27. £52,738 (including a Supplementary sum of £27,550), to complete the sum for Colonial Services, including South Africa.
      28. £1,000, to complete the sum for Cyprus (Grant in Aid).
      29. £700, to complete the sum for Slave Trade Services.
      30. £34,100, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 339.]

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 340.]
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Land Bill be taken To-morrow?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No. I should imagine it would be impossible to take it To-morrow. I propose To-morrow, after the Report of Supply is concluded, to move that the six o'clock Rule be suspended on Wednesday in order to conclude the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
Resolved,—
"That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, the

451
sum of £35,709,841 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
As amended, considered.
Clause 1,—

WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.

  POWER FOR TREASURY TO GUARANTEE INTEREST ON CERTAIN CAPITAL OF WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, ETC.
  The Treasury may, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated the tenth day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, between William Hayes Fisher, Esquire, and Edward George Villiers Stanley (commonly called Lord Stanley), two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and the West Highland Railway Company, being the agreement in the schedule to this Act, guarantee for a period of thirty years from the date of the opening for passenger traffic of the railway, the payment of interest or dividend at the rate of three pounds per centum per annum on two hundred and sixty thousand pounds of the share capital to be raised under the West Highland Railway Act, 1894, and may on the completion of the said pier, breakwater, and other works, pay to the company the said sum of thirty thousand pounds, and the sums required for the purposes of this section shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and if those moneys are insufficient shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof. During the said period of thirty years the Board of Trade shall make an annual report to Parliament as to the condition and working of the railway and the receipts and expenditure of the company with regard to the railway.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.),moved to leave out the words "and the receipts and expenditure of the company with regard to the railway," in order to insert
  "the rates end charges for traffic and the receipts and expenditure of any company in working the railway."
  He had thought it necessary, he said, to state in the Act that the Board of Trade should make a report, not only on the condition and working of the railway, but also the rates and charges upon it, and he had substituted "any company" for "the company," because the company referred to the West Highland Company,
  452
  and the railway, he understood, was to be worked by the North British Railway Company.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked whether the Report was to be made separately from the ordinary Board of Trade Report?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid it would be presented once a year as a separate Report.
  *MR. EDWARD STRACHEYasked whether the Amendment covered the tolls that might be charged for using the harbour and the pier, as well as the railway rates?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he had no doubt the Report would be upon the whole.
  *MR. J. MCLEODasked whether it was the intention to introduce some condition into the agreement between the West Highland Railway and the Treasury, similar to the arrangement intoduced into the Highland Railway Bill of 1892, by which rates leviable upon open boats were not to be charged in respect of this particular pier?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the best time to consider the point would be when the Board of Trade Report was laid before Parliament.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. STRACHEYmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert:—
  "Provided that the Treasury shall not give any such guarantee or make any such grant—

  (a) Unless it shall be certified to them by the Secretary for Scotland that the making of the railway would benefit agriculture in the district traversed by the railway, and that such railway is necessary for the development of the fishing industry;

  (b) Unless they are satisfied, after local inquiry, that the said railway, pier, breakwater and other works would not be constructed without special assistance from the State, and that the same if constructed would not unduly compete with any existing railway undertaking;

  (c) Unless they are satisfied that landowners, local authorities, and other persons locally interested have, by the free grant of land, given all reasonable assistance and facilities in their power for the construction of the said railway, pier, breakwater and other works."

  453
  He said he had no intention to move any Amendment on Report, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it necessary to prevent free discussion of the Amendment in Committee. The Amendment divided itself into three heads, and each followed the lines of the Light Railways Bill. He could not see why the Government should refuse to apply to Scotland provisions which they thought good enough for England.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he could only reply to the hon. Member as he had replied on several previous occasions—[cheers]—that his proposal was taken from an enactment in the Light Railways Act, which applied to cases which might in future come under the consideration of the Treasury for their decision. It was impossible to apply it to this Act, which simply confirmed an agreement already made by the Treasury.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 37; Noes, 158.—(Division List, No. 404.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."
  *MR. STRACHEYsaid the usual practice was that, in the case of a Bill imposing taxation, the Third reading could not be taken at the same sitting as the Report.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid this Bill would not come within that Rule.
  *MR. STRACHEYasked whether this Bill did not impose taxation?
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the Bill did not impose taxation.
  Bill read a Third time, and passed.

LARCENY BILL.
As amended, considered.
MR. T. LOUGHapologised for introducing Amendments at this stage; but the Bill had been brought to them from the Lords, and its stages in this House had been taken at
454
such uncanny hours that he hoped the Attorney General would excuse him moving a few Amendments. The Bill was of a very sweeping character. For instance, it provided that—
"if any person receives, or has in his possession, any property, knowing it to have been stolen outside the United Kingdom, he shall be liable to penal servitude for any term not less than three years and not more than seven years."
There were two classes of property which had not been sufficiently considered in drawing this very drastic Bill, and he desired to move, to insert after the word "kingdom" the words "other than warlike spoil or loot." [Laughter.]
*MR. SPEAKERthought that "loot" was hardly a word to introduce into an Act of Parliament. [Laughter.]
MR. LOUGHwas prepared that his Amendment should end at the word "spoil." If it could be proved that King Prempeh's jewels were stolen, those people who bought them at the recent sale would be liable to three or seven years' imprisonment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)wished to treat the hon. Member with all respect, but he would forgive him for saying that he had made an absurd suggestion. [Laughter.] The words of the Bill were exactly the same as those of other Larceny Bills.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, placed him in a position of great intellectual difficulty. It provided that no person without lawful excuse should receive property knowing it to be stolen. He wanted to know under what conditions one could receive property with lawful excuse knowing it to be stolen? [Laughter.] The Bill had not been drafted with the care for which the House of Lords was so distinguished. He was sure, however, there were Irish landlords who could enter into this question of property knowing it to be stolen with lawful excuse—[laughter]—the question of turbary, and so forth.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHEE, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]

  POWER OF COURT TO PROHIBIT INSTITUTION OF ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE.
  It shall be lawful for the Attorney General to apply to the High Court for an Order under this Act, and if he satisfies the High Court that any person has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without any reasonable ground for instituting such proceedings, whether in the High Court or in any inferior Court, and whether against the same person or against different persons, the Court may, after hearing such person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, order that no legal proceedings shall be instituted by that person in the High Court or any other Court, unless he obtains the leave of the High Court or some judge thereof, and satisfies the Court or Judge that such legal proceeding is not an abuse of the process of the Court, and that there is prima facie ground for such proceeding.
  *MR. J. F. OSWALDmoved the omission of the clause, because he thought that the Bill established a principle unknown to the English law. For the first time in the history of Parliament a Bill had been brought in practically shutting the doors of all Courts of Justice to particular subjects of the Queen, and that because one individual had made himself somewhat obnoxious in bringing proceedings. The Court already possessed powers to stop proceedings which might be considered to be vexatious. He was opposed to officialism—[laughter]—and he objected on behalf of the people of this country to a Bill which established that the Attorney General, himself an official, might come to the Court and make an application to shut the doors of the Courts to the whole of her Majesty's subjects, because Her Majesty's subjects were naturally inclined to be litigious. [Laughter.] The Bill ought to be most carefully considered, and it was not a Measure which ought to be thrust on the country at the last moment of an expiring Session. The Courts of Justice ought to be open to all. This clause actually proposed that a Judge of the High Court, on the application of the Attorney General, should have the power to shut the doors of any inferior Court against any particular
  456
  person. If an application had to be made it ought to be made to each separate Court. He was opposed to the clause because it infringed the first principle of public justice, namely, that it should be free to all alike. The Queen's Courts were public Courts, and all classes of litigants were entitled to free and unimpeded access thereto. The clause might lead to abuse; the courts had already ample power to summarily and inexpensively stop any vexatious or frivolous action.
  Question put, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 41.—(Division List, No. 405.)
  Clause 2,—

  EXTENT AND SHORT TITLE.
  (1.) This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland.
  (2.) This Act may be cited as the Vexatious Actions Act, 1896.
  MR. DOUGLAS COGHILLasked why this Bill was not extended to Ireland, if it were a good Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERALsaid that no necessity for the Bill had arisen in Ireland. In England there had been three or four cases within the last ten years.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it never entered into the mind of anyone to interfere until great people were attacked and put to inconvenience. Then the officers of the State stepped in at once to give protection. Poor men and women might be attacked until they were black in the face—[laughter]—and put to all kinds of expense, but nothing would be done.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that these proceedings had during the last few years cost the public a considerable sum in respect of persons whom it was the duty of the public to protect.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Lord Chancellor and officers like him were in no need of protection, because they were learned in the law and had plenty of money. [Laughter.] This was a piece of class legislation. In Ireland they had no desire for this Bill; and in England, if there were any abuse of process, the

  457
  Judge would give relief. The House of Lords never initiated any Bill for the benefit of the common people.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  *Mr. LEWISmoved a new clause (Duration of Act), providing that the Act should only remain in force till the end of 1907. This was an experimental Measure, and really it ought to be passed for only five years, but he would consent to a limit of ten years if the Government would consent to that.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the House would not be doing wisely in adopting such a time limit. It must be presumed that people were going to act reasonably. Action could only be taken on the motion of the Attorney General, and the Order was to be made by the High Court after hearing counsel. These precautions were sufficient.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 39; Noes, 141.—(Division List, No. 406.)
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

SUPPLY [AUGUST 8TH.]
Resolution reported.
SUPPLY [AUGUST 8TH.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS IV.
    "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."
    *MR. SPEAKERhaving put the Question, That the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,—
    *MR. McLEODsaid that the Education Department had for a number of years endeavoured to plant an Episcopalian school in the parish of Ardchattan
    458
    against the opinions of nine-tenths of the ratepayers; and, as a protest, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid that, as the Resolution had been put to the House, the hon. Member could oppose the Vote, but he could not move a reduction.
    *MR. MCLEODregretted that his ignorance of the forms of the House had prevented him from interposing at the proper moment. [Laughter.] The heads of the Education Department were clearly placing themselves in opposition to the local authority in a matter in which no question of education was concerned.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained that the Education Department only did what they were bound to do by law in regard to such matters.
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 141; Noes, 33.—(Division List, No. 407.)

POOR BELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

BURGLARY BILL.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to relieve assizes of the trial of simple cases of burglary. In substance, it was to enable magistrates to convict at Quarter Sessions in cases of burglary which were not of a serious character.
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLremarked that the Bill was really of a more comprehensive character than might be inferred from the few perfunctory observations with which it had been introduced. The first section gave Quarter Sessions the jurisdiction to try burglary, or, in other words, it gave to a Court, upon which there need not necessarily be a single

459
trained lawyer, jurisdiction to try offences which were punishable by penal servitude for life. That was a large order. This having been enacted in the first section it seemed to have occurred to the author of the Bill that it was going a little too far, and in the second section he began to hedge a bit. This latter section proposed that the Magistrate should commit to the Assizes, unless, in the exercise of his discretion, he chose to commit the prisoner to the Quarter Sessions. But the committing Magistrate was a member of the very Court which, if this power was exercised, would have to try the prisoner. They were thus giving power to a man to confer jurisdiction upon himself. By the law, a single magistrate had power to convict, and this was far too large a discretion to give a single magistrate. He objected to extending the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, because he found that the Judges on the one hand, and the Justices of the Quarter Sessions on the other, had different standpoints of inflicting punishment, and that meted out by the Justices at Quarter Sessions was much more severe than the sentences imposed by the Judges, especially in so far as related to police supervision. There were many hon. Members who would agree with him when he said that police supervision was admirably designed for preventing a man who had once fallen from ever getting on his legs again. It was the rarest thing in the world at Assizes to impose police supervision, whereas at Quarter Sessions the Justices dealt it out with a most unsparing hand.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHcordially supported the Bill.
Bill read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading (26th June) read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill read the Third time and passed.
QUARTER SESSIONS (LONDON) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDAIENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time:"—Debate arising;
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
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 Twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a To-morrow. (The Prime Minister).—[No. 243.]
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to he Read 2a To-morrow.—(The Prime Minister.)—[No. 244.]
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a To-morrow.—(The Prime Minister.)— [No. 245.]
STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment to be considered Tomorrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1,—

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.

  AMENDMENT OF 46 & 47 VICT. C. 60. SS. 4 AND 7.
  (1.) In Section four of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, "seven days" shall be substituted for "fourteen days" wherever those words occur.
  (2.) The notice of a subsequent meeting of a sanitary authority required by the said Section four shall not be necessary except in the case of a meeting at which a final resolution is to be passed.
  (3.) A representation under Section five of the said Act of 1883, or any certificate of a sanitary officer relating to the same, may be amended at any time prior or subsequent to the making of an improvement scheme in pursuance thereof, and the power of amendment hereby given shall include power to permit any such representation to be signed at any stage of the proceedings thereon by any person duly qualified to sign the same, and such signing shall have the same effect as if the representation had been originally so signed; provided that no amendment other than the addition of a signature shall be made without the consent in writing in the case of a representation of the persons who originally signed the same, and in the case of a certificate of the sanitary officer, and any signature added shall be verified by a member or officer of the sanitary authority.
  (4.) In Section seven of the said Act of 1883 "two consecutive weeks" shall be substituted for "three consecutive weeks," and the notices to be served under the said section may be served at the same time as, or at any time after, the publication of the advertisement in that section mentioned.
  (5.) Any notice under the said Section seven may be served on the agent of the person required to he served in like manner as on such person, and need not be served personally; provided that, if the service is by post, the letter shall be registered.
  (6.) Where the Local Government Board direct a local inquiry to be held under the said Section seven, the inspector of the Board appointed to hold the inquiry shall, not later than seven days before the day on which the Inquiry will be held, forward by post in a registered letter addressed to the usual or last-known plate of abode of every owner or reputed owner, lessee or reputed lessee, and occupier of the lands proposed to he taken compulsorily, and of the agents of such persons, a notice of the date on which the Inquiry will be held.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLYmoved, in Sub-section (6), after the words "reputed lessee," to omit the word "and," and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
  Amendment agreed to. Clause 3,—

  APPLICATION OF LANDS CLAUSES ACTS AND HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
  (1.) For the purpose of taking lands compulsorily by purchase under the principal Acts, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement shall be deemed

  271
  to be amended by the provisions contained in the Second schedule of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, and such provisions shall (subject as by this section provided) be deemed to form part of the principal Acts in like manner as if therein expressly enacted.
  (2.) In the construction for the purposes of the principal Acts of the provisions contained in the said Second schedule to the said Act of 1890, the "local authority" shall mean the sanitary authority, the "confirming Act" shall mean the order of the Local Government Board authorising the improvement scheme, when the same has become absolute or been confirmed, the "confirming authority" shall mean the Local Government Board, and references to the said Act of 1890 or to Part I. thereof shall be deemed references to the principal Acts.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLYmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "section" and to insert instead thereof the word "Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8,—

  CONDITIONS FOR SALE OF COTTAGES NOT REQUIRED FOR LABOURERS.
  A rural sanitary authority may, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, sell any cottage or cottages with the land attached, which have ceased to be required for the accommodation of labourers within the district, subject to the following conditions:—
  (1.) The purchaser shall be liable for the repayment of all charges or proportion of charges attached to such cottage or cottages and the land attached as may be specified in Sections twelve and eighteen of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, and subject also to the conditions of letting as specified in Section thirteen of the said Act of 1883.
  (2.) Such cottage or cottages and land shall he offered for sale at a reserve price, being not less than the charges or proportion of charges already incurred and paid by the rural sanitary authority.
  (3.) Such cottage or cottages and land shall be offered for sale at the said reserve price first to the owner or representative of the owner from whom the land for said cottage or cottages was originally purchased or taken on lease.
  (4.) If such owner or representative shall decline to purchase, or shall have neglected to do so within a reasonable time to be specified in the notice to him that such cottage or cottages and land are for sale, then they shall be offered for sale at the said reserve price to the actual occupier of the holding from which the land was taken.
  (5.) If such occupier shall decline to purchase, or shall have negleted to do so within a reasonable period of time to
  272
  be specified in the notice to him that such cottage or cottages and land are for sale, they shall be offered for sale by public auction or tender after specified advertisements in the newspapers circulating in the district, at a price, not less than the said reserve price.
  LORD RANFURLYmoved, after Clause 8, to insert as a new clause:—

  PROVISION AS TO RULES MADE BY THE LORD LIEUTENANT IN COUNCIL.
  "The power to make rules conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant in Council by Section twelve of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1885, shall be construed as including a power to rescind, revoke, amend or vary such rules.
  Clause agreed to.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
On the Order for Committee on this Bill,
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)said that, as he would not have an opportunity of speaking in Committee, he wished to say a few words in regard to the Amendments on the Paper. The Amendments of the Earl of Camperdown covered, to a large extent, the suggestion he (the Earl of Morley) ventured to make on the Second Reading of the Bill; and although they did not, by simply requiring the Order to be laid on the Table of the House, give such full protection as the passing of Provisional Orders would do, he was on the whole fairly satisfied with the provision. He had great sympathy with the Amendment of Lord Welby. He did not think it was fair that municipalities or county councils should have no chance of placing their case—if they opposed the Orders of the Board of Trade—before Parliament. He trusted the House would adopt some, if not all, the Amendments on the Paper.
Bill considered in Committee.
[The EARL of MORLEY in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7,—

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BY LIGHT RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
  (1.) Where an application for authorising a light railway under this Act is made to the Light Railway Commissioners, those Commissioners shall, in the first instance, satisfy themselves that all reasonable steps have been taken for consulting the local authorities, including road authorities, through whoso areas the railway is intended to pass, and the owners and occupiers of the land it is proposed to take, and for giving public notice of the application, and shall also themselves, by local inquiry and such other means as they think necessary, possess themselves of all such information as they may consider material or useful for determining the expediency of granting the application.
  (2.) The Commissioners shall, before deciding on an application, give full opportunity for any objections to the application to be laid before them, and shall consider all such objections, whether made formally or informally.
  (3.) If after consideration the Commissioners think that the application should be granted, they shall settle any draft order submitted to them by the applicants for authorising the railway, and see that all such matters (including provisions for the safety of the public and particulars of the land proposed to be taken) are inserted therein, as they think necessary for the proper construction and working of the railway.
  (4.) The order of the Light Railway Commissioners shall be provisional only, and shall have no effect until confirmed by the Board of Trade in manner provided by this Act.
  (5.) Where an application for a light railway has been refused by the Light Railway Commissioners, the applicants, if the council of any county, borough or district may appeal against such refusal to the Board of Trade, who may, at any time, if they think fit, remit the application or any portion thereof to the said Commissioners for further consideration with or without special instructions.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved, after Sub-section (1), to insert the following subsection:—

  ADVERTISEMENTS AND NOTICES.
  (2.) The party or parties making such application shall have
  published once at least in each of two consecutive weeks in some newspaper circulated in the district or some part of the district, an advertisement describing shortly the land proposed to be taken and the purpose for which the land is proposed to be taken, naming a place where a plan of the proposed works and of the lands which may be taken, and a book of reference to such plan, may be seen at all
  274
  reasonable hours, and stating the quantity of land they require; and shall further have
  served a notice in manner hereinafter mentioned on every owner or reputed owner, lessee or reputed lessee and occupier of such land, defining in each case the particular land intended to be taken, and requiring an answer, stating whether the person so served assents, dissents, or is neuter in respect of taking such land; such notice to be served
  by delivery of the same personally to the person on whom it is required to be served, or, if such person is absent abroad, to his agent; or
  by leaving the same at the usual or last-known place of abode of such person as aforesaid; or
  by forwarding the same by post in a registered letter addressed to the usual or last-known place of abode of such person;
  Every such plan shall be drawn on a scale of not less than four inches to a mile, and the book of reference shall contain the names of the owners and lessees, or reputed owner and lessees, and of the occupiers of the lands which may be taken.
  He did not wish to add unnecessarily to the expenses of the procedure connected with the Bill, but he thought it only-reasonable that when land was proposed to be taken some notice should be given to the owners and occupiers of the land.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The EARL of DUDLEY)said he could not accept the Amendment. His objection to it was that it tended to stereotype procedure, which ought to be laid down rather by rule than be specified in an Act of Parliament, and which ought to be variable according to the particular circumstances of each case. He thought it would be most unwise to apply rigidly to the small undertakings contemplated by the Bill the machinery applicable to large railway schemes. His noble Friend in drafting his Amendment appeared to go on the assumption, that promoters of light railways under the Bill would require large tracts of land. The Government, on the contrary, believed that light railways would not be constructed to any great extent under the Bill unless a liberal use of the roads was granted by the local authorities, for otherwise the cost of promotion and construction would be totally out of proportion to the revenue

  275
  likely to be derived from the undertakings. They might safely assume, for the same reason, that wherever land was wanted every effort would be made to obtain it by agreement rather than by compulsory powers. He quite agreed that, in cases where land was taken compulsorily, every opportunity should be given to persons affected of objecting and laying their case before the Railway Commissioners and the Board of Trade. Clause 15 gave the Board of Trade powers in those cases of securing the publicity his noble Friend required, and, besides, he intended to move an Amendment to that clause providing that plans and sections of the proposed railway should be deposited for inspection. Moreover, further protection in that direction was provided under the Lands Clauses Act, which would be incorporated in the Bill. The primary object of the Bill was to cheapen the cost of the promotion of such undertakings, and that was far more easily obtained by the elasticity which procedure under rules allowed.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid the noble Earl opposite seemed to think that the publication of advertisements in a country notice, and the serving of notice on persons likely to be affected by the railways, would be the source of serious delay and expense. He did not know that it was a matter of great importance one way or the other, but he was surprised that a Government so eminently Conservative should resist the moderate proposal of his noble Friend. After all, it was not a great tax, either in the way of money or time, to ask the promoters of a light railway which might go through a district to take the simple steps proposed in the Amendment. He did not know if the Prime Minister had considered it, and associated himself with the objections of the noble Lord. If he read the Amendment he would see that the objections were of a trivial character, and that the Amendment was one to which no Government that had not some subterranean object in view could possibly object.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)said he entirely disclaimed any subterranean object in reference to light railways. But since he had been in the House he had read
  276
  the Amendment, and he had listened to the clause which his noble Friend read from the Lands Clauses Act, and it seemed to him that the same result was achieved by the two sets of enactments. Therefore, if there was already on the Statute-book an enactment that secured sufficient publicity for all persons interested in the land, it was not worth while to have a totally different set of enactments, which would undoubtedly tend to complicate matters. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl that it was not a matter of great consequence.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcontended that the reference to the Lands Clauses Act applied to quite a different stage of the proceedings from that with which they were dealing, and to a different set of persons. The section of the Lands Clauses Act applied to the actual purchase of estates "taken in connection therewith." But this notice had nothing to do with the Board of Trade, and did not refer to proceedings before the Board of Trade. It referred to the initial proceedings stated in Clause 7 which were before the Light Railway Commissioners, and the Amendment said that before the Commissioners proceeded notice ought to have been given to the person whose land it was proposed to take—surely a simple and reasonable thing. The Board of Trade apparently laid down the doctrine that notice ought to be given, not specifically or in pursuance of Parliamentary enactment, but by regulation. Therefore the regulation was to be made by the Board of Trade, and they were to indicate what the notice was to be, so that any person whose property was to be taken had to depend on the Board of Trade and its regulations as to what notice it received, and how satisfactory or not that notice might be. The noble Lord said he was under the impression it was proposed to take large tracts of land. He was under no such idea. But whether the tract was large or small did not make much difference. To the man whose property it was proposed to take, it was exactly the same whether his property was large or small. He then referred him to Clause 15 to satisfy him. But Clause 15 had nothing to do with the proceedings before the Light Railway Commissioners at all. It referred to certain applications to be made to the Board of Trade

  277
  in reference to the local inquiry to be held by them. He had heard no reason whatever for departing from the ordinary rule which, as the Chairman of Committees pointed out, ought to be complied with, that notice should be given to the person whose property it was proposed to take. He could not willingly assent to the doctrine of the Board of Trade that they were to have control of the notices, so he would ask their Lordships to go to a Division.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said that if it was proposed to take a person's property one must, under the Lands Clauses Act, give notice of one's intention to take it, and of everything they wanted to take. The matter the House was now dealing with was that of preliminary notice, which might come to nothing unless the application was granted. As the Bill originally stood he should have agreed with the noble Lord, but if he would look at the Amendment he would find the Board of Trade had no power (the House was dealing with the compulsory taking of land) to vary any of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid a man might wish to appear before the Light Railway Commissioners to argue against light railways altogether. When they purchased his land and entered on occupation, it was rather late to give him notice that they would take his land.
  THE PRIME MINISTERsaid it was obvious that taking a man's land without his consent was a serious operation. But introducing a light railway into a district was hardly an operation that could do harm as long as they preserved the rights of property. He did not see why it should be necessary to give this elaborate notice and have all these complications of arrangement to prevent the possibility of a local authority setting up a light railway where it was not required. The difficulty of setting up light railways would be great enough without unnecessary formalities.
  THE EAEL OF ROSEBERYsaid that he was afraid he remained unconverted in spite of what had been said. As a matter of fact, it was surely no question of indifference to a district what course the light railway was to take. It was not an expensive or tedious formality to put
  278
  an advertisement two weeks running in the county paper to say such a railway was proposed, what course it would take, and where plans could be examined.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid a part of this proposal dealt with the question of maps, and it laid down that the same sized maps used for large railway schemes should be in force in these small undertakings. Surely that procedure was out of all proportion to the undertakings the Board of Trade contemplated in this Bill. He understood that his noble Friend agreed, with regard to the later stage, that the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act were sufficient to insure that due publicity should be given. But with regard to the first stage, he should like to know how the Commissioners could carry out their duties under Clause 7 unless they gave due notice to all who might be affected by or mentioned in the clause. However, it was not a point which was vital to the Bill, and if the House was of opinion that the safeguards for publicity contained in the Bill were not sufficient, he did not wish to press the House to a Division. But he was still of opinion that the Amendment was unnecessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the question "That Clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  *LORD WELBYmoved, to insert at the end of the clause—
  "if the Board of Trade overrule any objection made by the council of a county or county borough, they shall give notice thereof to the council, and if the council within one month of the receipt of that notice send to the Board of Trade a request, adopted by at least an absolute majority of the whole number of members of the council, that the Order shall be submitted to Parliament, the Order so far as it affects that county or borough shall have no effect unless it is confirmed by Parliament."
  The noble Lord said that the House would observe that in the Bill there was no definition of "light railway," and he understood that the provisions of the Bill applied and were intended to apply, to tramways in towns. He believed that up to the present time the local authorities of towns had had the management of their own tramway system, subject to the supreme control

  279
  and superintendence of Parliament. But the Bill proposed that Parliament should abdicate this power of control and supervision and transfer it to three permanent officials under the Board of Trade. This was a new departure in local government. He had great respect for public Departments and the work they did, and they were entitled to the respect they obtained from Parliament, "but he doubted whether so much power should be concentrated as was proposed in three officials at Whitehall. This was not a party question. As long as he remembered, both sides of politics had maintained stoutly the principle of local self-government. But if there was one subject which ought to fall within the province of local self-government it was the management of tramways in towns, and he did not think authority in such a matter of local interest should be at the discretion of a Government Department. The principle of the Bill had been approved by Parliament, and they all desired to see it carried into effect, and a fair trial given to it. But he would submit that, if a Government Department overrode the deliberate opinion of a local authority, some right of appeal should be given to that local authority. His attention was drawn to the clause as a member of the London County Council, but he made no distinction between London and other towns in this respect. His objection was to such interference with local self-government in all large towns, and the objection between London and other towns was only one of degree. It was right that there should be control over local authorities, and all parties accepted the conclusion of Parliament as final, but it appeared to him that the conclusion of Government officials was quite a different matter, against which there should be a certain right of appeal to Parliament.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYcould not accept this Amendment, which aimed at setting up a veto on behalf of county or urban Councils, and, by a bare majority, to force schemes promoted under this Bill to be submitted to the expensive and—for this purpose—inexpedient procedure of a Parliamentary Inquiry. The policy of the Bill had been to put local authorities upon the same footing with regard to their power of objection
  280
  before the Commissioners and the Board of Trade as they would be before Parliament if the promoters of a light railway were proceeding by the present method of obtaining a special Act. He believed there was no real cause for complaint, and the objections which might be urged by local authorities to a scheme of this kind would naturally carry weight before the Railway Commissioners and the Board of Trade. Moreover, he did not believe this Amendment was required by the County Councils as a whole. The Government had been in constant communication with many of the County Councils upon this subject, and in no case had they received any expression of a desire for an Amendment of this character, all the communications from these bodies being unanimous in their approval of the Bill as it at present stood. The Amendment, he believed, had been put forward primarily in the interests of the London County Council, that body, no doubt, thinking that, if this Bill passed, tramway schemes would be promoted under its provisions which might hamper them in their position in regard to the tramways which now existed. He did not believe that danger was one which could really be seriously considered. Local authorities had full power of objection before the Commissioners and the Board of Trade, and he believed the moment it was shown that a scheme under the provisions of this Bill was intended to act as a rival to the tramway schemes already existing in London, the Board of Trade would insist that it should be presented to Parliament in the ordinary course of things. It must also be remembered that the London County Council was the road authority over the main roads of London, and, therefore, it would be impossible to promote a tramway undertaking upon the main roads without obtaining the sanction of the London County Council, or at least without the Council having a full opportunity of objecting before the Board of Trade.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYattached the greatest importance to this Amendment. How the Bill had come up to the House of Lords, after passing through the House of Commons, without any such provision being made in that popular Chamber for preserving the

  281
  rights and wishes of localities, was to him a mystery. What was the very moderate Amendment of his noble Friend? It was that, when a representative council of a borough or county objected to a scheme that was laid before the Railway Commissioners, they should have the right, not of veto, but of an appeal to Parliament. The noble Earl said it was to be only by a bare majority. How else did they decide any question in either House of Parliament, except by a bare majority? But, if the noble Earl was discontented by a bare majority, he had only got to insert in the clause a "proportionate" majority, and he was sure his noble Friend, rather than lose the benefits of the clause, would accept such an alteration. They had heard the old story of the great and illimitable confidence placed in permanent Commissioners, whether of the Board of Trade or other Department. He was not quite sure whether that confidence was absolutely illimitable. They had had Commissioners for many years past for whom they had the greatest esteem and respect, but still they had not that implicit confidence in them which would allow them to override the wishes of localities without possibility of appeal to Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] Under the Bill as it stood three permanent officials, sitting in a room in Downing Street or Whitehall, might entirely override the wishes of the County Council of this great Metropolis—a body, he was aware, which was not altogether popular among their Lordships, but which it could not be denied represented the views of the people of London—on such a matter, say, as the tramways of London. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Government objected to a bare majority, but would agree to any fair proportion of votes of a County Council giving the right of appeal to Parliament, he would urge his noble Friend to accept the clause so modified. Without some such provision as this he regarded the clause as likely to overrule the openly-expressed wishes of localities, and therefore as likely to overturn the whole tendency of legislation for the last few years, and largely to neutralise that Local Government Bill in which the President of the Board of Trade took so legitimate a pride. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE PRIME MINISTERobserved that it was undoubtedly a formidable circumstance that the London County Council should have thrown its shadow across the progress of this Bill. But he begged the House not to be dazzled with the lustre of the London County Council, and not to imagine that popular appeals to its infallibility, and to the remarkable manner in which it always represented the wishes of the people of this Metropolis, should turn the House away from the important considerations which were raised by this Amendment. The whole country was not governed by the London County Council, and the parts of the country where light railways would be required were exactly the parts with which the London County Council had very little to do. ["Hear, hear!"] The object of the Bill was to make light railways possible. They had hitherto been impossible on account of the expense of setting them up. It was desired to diminish that expense, and to do that they must diminish to some extent the precautions by which they had hitherto arranged undertakings of this kind. There were only two interests really which were possibly jeopardised by a light railway. One was the interest of private property, and the other the interest the public had in their roads. The question was whether they were bound to surround that last interest with precautions which might be very embarrassing and very costly. It was not a question of what was to be done with a light railway which was wholly within the province of one local authority. Of course light railways did not confine themselves to the province of one locality. They did not begin or end there. They might go possibly through a mile or two or a few yards of one local authority, and that local authority might desire to divert the course of the light railway and to force it into some other course which would be more suitable to their own view and their own interests; and if they gave them this power of absolute veto, even if their interest only applied to a few miles, they would enable them to exercise a dominant control over the circumstances and conditions under which the light railway was to be made, and which might very often be exercised much more in the

  283
  limited interest of the particular area over which that local authority ruled than of the general interest of the public. Where the interests simply concerned the locality over which the local authority ruled, he quite agreed in the principle that they should give them the utmost power, but where interests were affected that touched many areas or more areas than one, and where there was or might be a difference of opinion among local authorities, they must seek for an arbiter outside. He thought it was a strong Measure to say that that arbiter must always be Parliament. He did not see that there was any danger in committing that arbitration—an arbitration which probably would not arise very often, and in which there would be very little temptation to go wrong—to some body which represented the central and Imperial power rather than the local authorities. It was the natural function of the Imperial power to be the arbiter between local authorities when they could not agree. Therefore he should be sorry to give the absolute veto which this clause proposed. He thought it might tend to hinder this experiment of light railways. It was no doubt an experiment. It was an experiment which might not succeed, but which they had every ground to think would be very beneficial if it did succeed. But they must give it a chance to succeed, and they must cut down all the precautions which were embarrassing wherever they could do it without serious danger either to private rights or to public interests. He therefore thought his noble Friend was right in objecting to this Amendment. It might produce a serious embarrassment. It could not affect, to any formidable extent, the interests of that most aggressive body, the London County Council. The London County Council would very seldom have any light railway to play with, and he did not see why the interests of the distant parts of the country, where this Bill was really required, should be sacrificed in order to meet the requirements of its jealousy.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYhoped the House would not be misled by the phraseology of the noble Marquess. He spoke of the proposal as giving an absolute veto to the local bodies. The clause only sought to give to local bodies
  284
  the right enjoyed by everybody in this kingdom of an appeal to Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] That did not seem to him to be a very great demand to make when they knew what the proceedings of the Commissioners themselves were. He hoped the House in this matter would not merely consider the case of the London County Council—a phrase which, he knew, often prejudiced good causes in that House—but would remember that the authority of every great local body in this country was jeopardised and at stake, and that, if they, by rejecting that clause, denied to these local authorities the small appeal which that clause would give them, they were casting a slur upon them which he did not think they deserved and which he thought they would be quick to resent.
  The House divided on question "That the proposed sub-section be here inserted."

  CONTENTS

  31.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  79.

  DIVISION LIST.—CONTENTS.

  Caledon, E.

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

  Camperdown, E.

  Carrington, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel).

  Hardwicke, E.

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

  Kilmorey, E.

  Morley, E.

  Kensington, L. [TELLER.]

  Portsmouth, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Loch, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Muskerry, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Sackville, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Oxtenbridge, V.

  Stanmore, L.

  Powerecourt, V.

  Welby, L. [TELLER.]

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Burghclere, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

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

  Devonshire, D. (L. President).

  Belmore, E.

  Cross, V. (L Privy Seal).

  Carnwath, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Coventry, E.

  Somerset, D.

  de Montalt, E. Dudley, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Fortescue, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ilchester, E.

  285

  Lanesborough, E.

  Emly, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Onslow, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Harris, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Iveagh, L.

  Selborne, E.

  James, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Kilmaine, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

  Lawrence, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Massy, L.

  Mendip, L.(V. Clifden.)

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Monek, L. (V. Monck.)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Addington, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Annaly, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Belpor, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Rothschild, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Churchill, L. [TELLER.]

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Clarina, L.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Colchester, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Connemara, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  Proposed sub-section negatived; Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10,—

  CONFIRMATION OF ORDER BY BOARD OF TRADE.
  The Board of Trade may confirm the Older with or without modifications as the case may require, and un order so confirmed shall have effect as if enacted by Parliament, and shall he conclusive evidence that all the requirements of this Act in respect of proceedings required to be taken before the making of the Order have been complied with.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to add words providing that all Orders of the Board of Trade should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 30 days. The effect of the clause as it now stood was to make the Board of Trade perfectly independent of Parliament and without
  286
  any check whatsoever with regard to these Orders. He did not think such a thing had ever been done. In the present Session of Parliament there was something of the same kind proposed in another Hill, but that was stopped by their Lordships. The noble Lord who sat at the Table had pointed out to their Lordships the danger of the clause as it stood, and he also told them that this Amendment, although to a certain extent a protection, was not, in his opinion, entirely an adequate protection. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that properly speaking there ought to be some provision for something in the nature of a Provisional Order, but in putting down this Amendment he had in his mind what he believed to be the desire of Parliament to make these proceedings as cheap as possible, and therefore be simply proposed that all these Orders should lie on the Table of the Houses of Parliament for 30 days. That preserved to Parliament that general control which with regard to such a matter as light railways he hoped their Lordships would consider was absolutely essential. Why should Parliament give to the Board of Trade the absolute independence which this clause did? and if they gave the power to one public department, why not give it to any other public office? He hoped their Lordships would not forget that the President of the Board of Trade was an official that changed with the Government, and if the clause in question passed as it stood, whoever might be the President of the Board of Trade would, for the time being, have in his power the full control over the construction of light railways. The new clause he proposed delayed the matter for the shortest possible time, and if, during that time, there was no objection, the Order would go on without any expense to the parties.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid the Amendment was almost identical with one proposed in the House of Commons, and defeated, after a full Debate, by a large majority. It struck at the root of the whole policy that the Government had adopted in this Bill, and therefore he most emphatically asked their Lordships to reject the Amendment. The Government believed that if it was inserted the Bill would become virtually waste paper, and that the utility of the

  287
  procedure they were trying to set up would be absolutely nullified. What did the suggestion of his noble Friend mean? He suggested that after all the expense and trouble of promoting an Order under the Bill had been incurred—after the most careful consideration had been given to a scheme, not only by an independent and impartial body of Commissioners, but also by the Board of Trade—after local inquiries had been made and evidence taken in opposition to and in favour of the scheme, a further tribunal should be brought into play and the whole matter subjected to the uncertainty of Parliamentary approval. He said again that if the proposed clause was inserted in the Bill, it would be fatal to its provisions. Was it likely that they would get a business man to subscribe money for promoting a scheme under the Bill, which at best would only hold out the hope of a slender profit, if it was to be subjected to such a course as that suggested by the noble Lord. The uncertainties under his Amendment would be even greater than they were at the present time under the ordinary method of procedure by a special Act. At least the promoters could now state their case. They could obtain counsel, call witnesses, speak as to the local want of an undertaking of the kind, but if the noble Lord's Amendment was inserted in the Bill, the scheme would be laid upon the Table of either House, would be absolutely undefended, and probably not altogether comprehended, and be made subject to a snap Division in the other House after 12 o'clock at night. It was not, of course, for him to criticise Parliament or its methods; but their Lordships knew well the ordinary condition of the House of Commons after 12 o'clock at night; what a small proportion of Members was then usually present, and how easy it was at that time to delay, and possibly to block, the final accomplishment of any proposal. Moreover, they could not answer that under this Amendment criticisms and objections would be considered on the merits of any particular proposal. Let them take the case, for instance, of an existing railway company. It would be perfectly possible for any Member in such a case to object to the Order, not because he particularly objected to it,
  288
  but because he held extreme views as to the policy of our railway system generally; and according to the Amendment every Order under this Bill was to be subject to conditions of that kind. He thought it would be most unfair to the promoters of an undertaking, after having incurred all the expenses necessary to the promotion, that their scheme should be subjected to uncertainties of that kind. He did not put forward those objections to the Amendment merely as matters of opinion. He could assure the House that there was at the present time a railway company ready and prepared to promote a number of schemes for the establishment of light or branch lines under the Bill the moment it became law, and he could state as a fact that when the Amendment analogous to the one now before their Lordships was proposed in the other House, the general manager of that company told one of the officers of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, that if it was inserted in the Bill, every one of those schemes would be dropped by the company. His noble Friend said that what he proposed was to be without prejudice to the making of any other Order. What did he mean by that?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it meant that if the other House objected to the passing of the Order, then that Order would not, of course, come into force, and a new Order might be promoted.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEY: But by whom would it be promoted? If the Order was to be altered by either House of Parliament as a whole, it then meant that Parliament, without evidence, without local knowledge, and without full information as to the facts, was going to set aside an Order made on evidence given before the Commissioners and the Board of Trade, or change it according to its own views. But if the Order was to be sent back to be re-promoted, then it meant that the whole of the previous expense was to be wasted, and the cost of promoting those lines under the Bill be immensely increased. As he said at the commencement of his remarks, the Amendment went to the root of the whole matter; it would strike a serious blow at the procedure the Government

  289
  were endeavouring to set up, and it would, in his opinion, render the provisions of the Bill nugatory. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would reject the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he desired to say only one word in reply. The noble Lord seemed to think that the proposal he submitted would throw some cost on the parties. But how could it do so? The Order would lie on the Table of both Houses for 30 days, and if during that time neither House disagreed, the Order would come to an end. It was quite a mistake to suppose that this would entail any cost. Then the noble Lord seemed to be rather disturbed by some words in the clause, but he could assure the noble Lord that the clause was a common one. It would be found in many Acts of Parliament, in the Scottish Fisheries Act of last year among others. He was seriously concerned to hear that the noble Lord had such a bad opinion of the House of Commons, and particularly after 12 o'clock at night—[laughter]—and because of the possibly unfortunate condition of the House after that hour, he invited their Lordships to put the President of the Board of Trade, in whom he naturally had greater confidence as a despot, in the place of the House of Commons and the House of Lords as well. He must say that he attached great importance to Parliament retaining a control over those Orders. The President of the Board of Trade might make, and probably would make very good Orders, but he might also make bad Orders, and in such circumstances it was very expedient that Parliament should keep the control of matters of this kind in its own hands. Parliament might be trusted not to interfere without good reason. He hoped their Lordships would accept his Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid the noble Lord had misunderstood him. He never said that the mere laying of the Order on the Table of the House would entail expense, but what he did say was that if the Order, under the, noble Lord's Amendment, should be sent back either to the Board of Trade or the Commissioners to reconstruct or recast, very-great extra expense would be entailed. ["Hear, hear!"] That was obvious. Then the noble Lord said that his proposal
  290
  had been followed in other Acts of Parliament, and that it was not an uncommon procedure. No more so was the suggestion made by the Government. Their suggestion also had a precedent; for instance, in the case of the Allotments Act. Land was taken compulsorily, without appeal to Parliament for a definite public purpose, and the Government were only following that precedent in the present Bill. They believed that the establishment of light railways in certain districts was for the general good, and therefore it was not straining the Constitution to come to Parliament, and ask to allow those railways to be constructed and land to be taken for the purpose.
  Amendment negatived; Clause 10 ordered to stand part of Bill.
  Clause 11,—

  PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE MADE BY THE ORDER.
  An Order under this Act may contain provisions consistent with this Act for all or any of the following purposes—

  (a) the incorporation, subject to such exceptions and variations as may be mentioned in the Order, of all or any of the provisions of the Clauses Acts as defined by this Act. Provided that where it appears to the Board of Trade that variations of the Clauses Acts are required by the special circumstances of the case, the Board of Trade shall make a special report to Parliament on the subject; and

  (b) the application, if and so far as may he considered necessary, of any of the enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act (being enactments imposing obligations on railway companies with respect to the safety of the public and other matters); and

  (c) giving the necessary powers for constructing and working the railway, including power to make agreements with railway and other companies for the purpose; and

  (d) giving any railway company any power required for carrying the order into effect; and

  (e) the constitution as a body corporate of a company for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the order; and

  (f) the representation on the managing body of the railway of any council who advance, or agree to advance, any money for the purpose of the railway; and

  291

  (g) authorising a Council to advance or borrow money for the purposes of the railway and limiting the amount to he so advanced or borrowed, and regulating the terms on which any money is to be so advanced or borrowed; and

  (h) the manner in which the profits are to be divided, where an advance is made by a council to a light railway company as part of the share capital of the company; and

  (i) the proper audit of the accounts of the managing body of the railway where the managing body is not a local authority and the time within which the railway must be constructed; and

  (j) fixing the maximum rates and charges for traffic; and

  (k) in the case of a new company, requiring the company to make a deposit, and providing for the time of making and the application of the deposit; and

  (l) empowering any local authority to acquire the railway; and

  (m) any other matters, whether similar to the above or not, which may be considered ancillary to the objects of the order or expedient for carrying those objects into effect.

  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved in paragraph (a) after the words "variations of the" to insert the word "Lands." He said that when the Bill was in the other House an Amendment was moved to insure that where any variation was made by the Board of Trade in the Lands Clauses Act, a special report should be made to Parliament. Unfortunately the word "Lands" was omitted, with the result that under the Bill as it now stood a report would have to be made to Parliament every time an alteration was made not only in the Lands Clauses Act, but also in the Railway Clauses Act, and the Companies Clauses Act. He therefore proposed to make the omission good. His noble friend, the Secretary for Scotland, had asked him to make the word "Act" in his second Amendment "Acts," and to leave out "1845," so as to bring in the Scotch Lands Clauses Act as well as the English.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved in paragraph (a) after the word "subject" to insert the words
  "and that nothing in this section shall authorise any variation of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 12,—

  APPLICATION OF GENERAL RAILWAY ACTS.
  (1.) The Clauses Acts, as defined by this Act, and the enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall not apply to a light railway authorised under this Act except so far as they are incorporated or applied by the order authorising the railway.
  (2.) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act and to any special provisions contained in the Order authorising the railway, the general enactments relating to railways shall apply to a light railway under this Act in like manner as they apply to any other railway; and for the purposes of those enactments the light railway company shall be deemed a railway company, and the Order under this Act a special Act, and any provision the roof a special enactment. Provided that a light railway shall not be deemed to be a railway within the moaning of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Victoria, chapter seventy-nine, entitled "An Act to repeal the Duties payable on Stage Carriages and on Passengers conveyed upon Railways, and certain other Stamp Duties in Great Britain, and to grant other Duties in lieu thereof, and also to amend the Laws relating to the Stamp Duties," and that no duties shall hereafter be levied in respect of passengers conveyed on a light railway constructed under this Act in respect of the conveyance of such passengers upon such railway.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved in Sub-section (2) after the word "enactments" to insert the words—
  "and of the Clauses Acts so far as they are incorporated or applied by the Order authorising the railway "
  This was a technical Amendment which merely added to the machinery provided by the Clauses Acts for bringing into effect schemes authorised under these Orders.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved in Sub-section (2) to omit the words—
  "Act of the fifth and sixth years of Victoria, chapter seventy-nine, entitled, 'An Act to repeal the duties payable on stage carriages and on passengers conveyed upon railways, and certain other Stamp Duties in Great Britain, and to grant other Duties in lieu thereof, and also to amend the Laws relating to Stamp Duties,' "
  and to insert instead there of the words—" Railway Passenger Duty Act, 1842."

  293
  This Amendment was merely to incorporate the short title instead of the full.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 13,—

  MODE OF SETTLING PURCHASE-MOSEY AND COMPENSATION FOR TAKING OF LAND.
  (1.) Where any Order under this Act incorporates the Lands Clauses Acts, any matter which under those Acts may be determined by the verdict of a jury, by arbitration, or by two justices, shall for the purposes of the Order be referred to and determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, and the provisions of this Act shall apply with respect to the determination of any such matter in lieu of those of the Lands Clauses Acts relating thereto. Provided that, in determining the amount of compensation, the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the proposed light railway.
  (2.) The Board of Trade may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on any such arbitration, and may, by such rules, limit the cases in which the costs of counsel are to be allowed.
  (3.) The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any arbitration under this section.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "appointed," to insert the words—
  "by the parties, or, if the parties do not concur in the appointment of a single arbitrator, then."
  The object of the Amendment was that if the parties did not agree upon the appointment of a single arbitrator, one should be appointed by the Board of Trade.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYhad no objection to the Amendment, but it appeared to him rather unnecessary. As the law now stood an arbitrator would not be nominated by the Board of Trade until the parties to the dispute and to any question had failed to agree upon one. Naturally, if a railway promoter wished to take land, he would say to the landowner, "I want your land for this purpose." It would then be open to the landowner either to arrange with him about the price, or failing that to arrange about an arbitration to settle the price,
  294
  or failing that the matter would go to the Board of Trade, who would appoint the arbitrator. But, however, if the noble Lord wished the words inserted he had no objection.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it was the ordinary procedure under the Lands Clauses Act. As a matter of fact the arbitrator was, generally speaking, appointed by the parties.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 14 (payment of purchase money or compensation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 15,—

  PROVISIONS AS TO BOARD OF TRADE.
  (1.) If the Board of Trade hold a local Inquiry for the purposes of this Act, Part I. of the Board of Trade Arbitrations, etc., Act, 187*1, shall apply to any Inquiry so hold, as if—

  (a) the Inquiry was held on an application made in pursuance of a special Act; and

  (b) the parties making the application for the Order authorising the light railway, and in the case of an Inquiry held with reference to an objection made to any such application the persons making the objection in addition, were parties to the application within the meaning of section three of the Act.

  (2.) The Board of Trade may make such rules as they think necessary for regulating the time within which objections must be made, the manner in which any notice under this Act must be given, and any other matters which they may think expedient to regulate by rule for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect.
  (3.) There shall be charged in respect of proceedings under this Act before the Board of Trade or the Light Railway Commissioners such fees as may be fixed by the Treasury on the recommendation of the Board of Trade.
  (4.) Any expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act shall, except so far as provision is made for their payment by or under this Act, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  (5.) The Board of Trade shall present to Parliament annually a report of their proceedings and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners under this Act.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words—
  "time within which objections must be made, the manner in which any notice under this Act must be given,"

  295
  and to insert instead thereof the words—
  "procedure under this Act, whether before the Board of Trade or before the Light Railway Commissioners."
  This Amendment was to make it quite clear that the rules made by the Board of Trade should apply both to the procedure before the Light Railway Commissioners and before the Board of Trade. There was a little ambiguity about the words as the Bill at present stood.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *The EARL OF DUDLEYmoved, after the word "effect," to insert the words—
  "and provision shall be made by such rules for the deposit and inspection of plans relating to the railway."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 16 to 18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 19,—

  POWER OF OWNERS TO GRANT LAND OR ADVANCE MONEY FOR A LIGHT RAILWAY.
  (1.) "Where any person has power, either by statute or otherwise, to sell and convey any land for the purpose of any works of a light railway, he may, with the sanction of the Board of Agriculture given under this section, convey the land for that purpose either without payment of any purchase-money or compensation or at a price less than the real value, and may so convoy it free from all incumbrances thereon.
  (2.) Whenever any person who is a landowner within the meaning of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, contributes any money for the purpose of any works of a light railway, the amount so contributed may, with the sanction of the Board of Agriculture given under this section, be charged on the land of the landowner improved by the works in the same manner and with the like effect as in the case of a charge under that Act.
  (3.) The Board of Agriculture shall not give their sanction under this section unless they are satisfied that the works for which the land is conveyed or the money is contributed will effect a permanent increase in the value of the land held by the same title or of other land of the same landowner exceeding, in the case of a conveyance of land, that which is, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, the real value of the land conveyed or the difference
  296
  between that value and the price, as the case may be, and in the case of a contribution of money the amount contributed: Provided also, that if the land proposed to be conveyed is subject to incumbrances, the Board of Agriculture, before giving their sanction under this section, shall cause notice to be given to the incumbrancers, and shall consider the objections, if any, raised by them.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved, after Clause 19, to add the following new clause:—

  POWER TO GRANT CROWN LANDS.
  "The Commissioners of Woods shall, on behalf of Her Majesty, have the like powers to convey Crown lands as are by this Act conferred upon persons having power, either by statute or otherwise, to sell and convey lands, except that in the case of Crown lands the sanction of the Treasury shall be substituted for the sanction of the Board of Agriculture."
  This was to allow the Commissioners of Woods to convey Crown lands in the same way as was allowed to private owners under Clause 19 to facilitate the construction of light railways.
  Clause read 1a and 2a, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 20 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 25,—

  APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.
  This Act shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—
  (1.) In Section five of this Act the expression "Secretary for Scotland" shall be substituted for the expressions "Board of Agriculture" and "Board of Trade" respectively, occurring in that section.
  (2.) References to the council of any county, borough, or district shall be construed as references to the county council of any county, or the town council, or where there is no town council the police commissioners of any burgh, or the commissioners of any police burgh, or the district committee of any district under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889; or in any county where there is no district committee any two or more parish councils may combine.
  (3.) "Arbiter" shall be substituted for "arbitrator," and that arbiter shall be deemed to be a single arbiter within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Acts, and in lieu of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to an arbitration shall apply, except the provisions of the said Acts as to the expenses of the arbitration, in lieu of which the following provision shall

  297
  have effect, namely, the expenses of the arbitration and incident thereto shall be in the discretion of the arbiter, who may direct to and by whom and in what manner those expenses, or any part thereof, shall be paid, and may tax or settle the amount of expenses to be so paid, or any part thereof, and may award expenses to be paid as between agent and client.
  (4.) The Lord President of the Court of Session shall be substituted for the Lord Chancellor.
  (5.) The money necessary to defray expenditure, not being capital expenditure incurred by a county council in pursuance of this Act, shall be raised by a rate imposed along with but as a separate rate from the rate for maintenance of roads (hereinafter referred to as "the road rate") leviable under the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, upon lands and heritages within the county, or the district, or the parish, as the case may he. The money necessary to defray expenditure similarly incurred by a town council, or police commissioners, or burgh commissioners, shall be raised by a rate imposed along with but as a separate rate from the police assessment or burgh general assessment, as the case may be. If the expenditure incurred is capital expenditure it shall be raised by borrowing in the manner authorised by the order, the rate chargeable for repayment of capital, including interest and expenses, being the same rate as is liable for maintenance as aforesaid, and it shall not he necessary for the county council to have the consent of the standing joint committee for such borrowing.
  (6.) The provisions relating to district councils shall apply to district committees or combinations of parish councils, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) A district committee shall not be entitled to make an application under section two hereof except with the consent of the county council given at a special or statutory meeting of the council, of which one month's special notice, setting forth the purpose of the meeting, shall have been sent to each councillor.

  (b.) A resolution to give such consent shall not be passed by the council unless two-thirds of the councillors present and voting at the special meeting concur in the resolution.

  (c.) Nothing in this Act shall authorise a district committee to raise money by rate or loan, but any money necessary to defray expenditure, not being capital expenditure incurred by it in pursuance of this Act, shall he raised by the County Council by a rate imposed along with but as a separate rate from the road rate; and any money necessary to defray capital expenditure shall be raised by the County Council by borrowing in the manner authorised by the order, as in Section fifteen hereof mentioned.

  (7.) The expression "Clause Acts" shall mean the Lands Clauses Acts, the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, the Companies
  298
  Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, the Companies Clauses Act, 1863, the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, and the Companies Clauses Act, 1869.
  (8.) References to the Local Government Act, 1888, and the Local Government Act, 1894, shall be construed as references to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, and the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.
  (9.) In order to carry out in Scotland the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) (c) of Section five of this Act, it shall be the duty of the assessor of railways and canals, as regards any parish to which the said Sub-section (1) (c) applies, to enter on his valuation roll either the annual value of the light railway within such parish ascertained in terms of the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Acts, or the annual value at which the land occupied by or for the purposes of the light railway would have been assessed if it had remained in the condition in which it was immediately before it was acquired for the purposes of the railway, whichever is less.
  (10.) Where a light railway constructed under the powers of this Act is owned or leased by an existing railway company, such light railway shall not be valued by the said assessor as part of the general undertaking of the railway company, but shall be valued as a separate undertaking.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD BALFOUR)said this clause was the one which applied the Bill to Scotland. The last two lines of Sub-section (5) were accepted in the House of Commons by inadvertence, and he proposed their deletion. The effect of the lines was to take away the control of the Standing Joint Committee over the borrowing powers which were given to county councils, and that he did not think was an expedient thing to do. He did not think it could be alleged that the Standing Joint Committees in Scotland had been obstructive in these matters, and he knew of no difficulty having occurred through their action. At the same time it was extremely important that the Standing Joint Committee should know what was being done by the different districts in the county and what was the amount of money being borrowed, because that amount, if it became too large, naturally affected the security for the whole debt. He had communicated with the President of the Board of Trade, and he agreed that the two lines should be deleted. He moved to omit the words at the end of Sub-section (5)—
  "and it shall not be necessary for the county council to have the consent of the Standing Joint Committee for such borrowing. "
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved, in Paragraph (b), Sub-section (6), after the word "special," to insert the words "or statutory."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOURsaid that at the end of Paragraph (c), Subsection (6), by inadvertence, the word "fifteen," which referred to the 15th Section of the Bill, had got in; it should obviously be "sixteen," because it was the 16th Clause which referred to borrowing powers, and not the 15th. He therefore begged to move to delete "fifteen" and to insert "sixteen. "
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 26,—

  EXTENT OF ACT.
  This Act shall not extend to Ireland.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 27,—

  DEFINITIONS.
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "light railway company" includes any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, who are owners or lessees of any light railway authorised by this Act, or who are working the same under any working agreement.
  The expression "Clauses Acts" means the Lands Clauses Acts, the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, and the Railways Clauses Act 1863, and the Companies Clauses Acts 1845 to 1889.
  The expression "share capital" includes any capital, whether consisting of shares or of stock, which is not raised by means of borrowing.
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYmoved, in the first paragraph, after the words "or not, who are," to insert the words "authorised to construct, or are."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 28 (short title) and Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 242.]
  *THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid that, as it was important that this Bill should go to the House of Commons as soon as possible, he should to-morrow move to suspend the Standing Order, so that the Report stage and Third Reading might be taken on one day.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
On the Order for the consideration of the Commons' Amendments to this Bill,
LORD HARRISmoved that the Amendments to Clauses 1, 2 and 3, and to new Clause D, be agreed to.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAasked how the maximum speed of 14 miles an hour for these vehicles had been arrived at. A much greater speed had been contemplated.
LORD HARRISsaid that while the Bill was under discussion, several noble Lords expressed the fear that the absence of any speed limit would be dangerous. In the House of Commons the same fears obtained, and the limit of 14 miles an hour, which was considered fair, was inserted.
Motion agreed to.
LORD GLENESKsaid that he had put down a Motion "That the House do disagree with the Commons," in connection with the Commons' Amendment imposing a tax upon these light locomotives. The Bill was introduced because it was believed that these vehicles would be a great public benefit and an assistance to farmers, traders, and others interested in the conveyance of goods. But a desire to check this new enterprise was manifested in the Amendments moved in the House of Commons; and

301
the most serious of these Amendments was that which imposed a deterrent tax, amounting in all to £1 or £5 a year. But as there was a doubt as to whether an Amendment dealing with a question of taxation could be moved in the House of Lords, and as he did not wish, in the interests of the Bill, to raise a question between the two Houses, he should withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid that he wished to add his emphatic protest against this tax on a nascent industry. In country districts these new vehicles were looked to as a great source of relief, and he believed that they would be more important to agriculture even than light railways. They would take the place of the farmers waggon and horses, on which he was required to pay no tax. This was, moreover, an unsuitable moment to impose new burdens on an industry which everyone was endeavouring to relieve. These vehicles were to be used for the collection of agricultural produce in rural districts; a process which, in the interests of the community, it was desirable to make more easy; and he should certainly have voted against the tax if the Amendment had been pressed to a Division.
LORD HARRISsaid that the hardship was not so great as the noble Earl made out. The noble Earl would wish all these locomotives, whether used for agricultural or private purposes, to be exempt from taxation; but at the present moment all carriages, except farmers' waggons, were taxed two guineas a year under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act; and all locomotives, for whatever purpose used, had to pay a licence to the county. The maximum charge for the licence was £10, and the county authority generally exacted the maximum. It was unquestionable that these locomotives would take more wear and tear out of the roads than the ordinary horse-drawn carriage, and the Bill merely proposed to secure the county authority from being bereft of the locomotive licence altogether, as well as to require the payment of the Customs Duty. Out of the £4 or £5 payable, the County Council would get £2 or £3 instead of the £10 which they received for a heavy locomotive.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAmoved at the end of the new clause imposing the tax to insert the following words:—
"Provided that this clause shall not apply to any locomotive which is used exclusively for common agricultural purposes."
LORD HARRISsaid that, as the clause dealt with taxation, it was doubtful whether the Amendment was in order. The opinion of the officers of the House of Commons, whose opinion he had taken, was that the Amendment would not be in order; and the opinion of the officers of the House of Lords was that, whilst technically the Amendment could be moved, it was highly improbable that it would be accepted in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF WINC HILSEAsaid that he would press the Amendment, as their Lordships ought to take the advice of the officers of their own House, and not that of the officers of the House of Commons.
Amendment negatived.
LORD HARRISmoved that the Commons' Amendments to Clauses 4, 5, and 6, and now Clauses D, E, and F, and the Schedules of the Bill be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.

IMMUNITY OF JUDGES.
*THE EARL OF STAMFORDrose to ask whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the case of "Anderson v. Gorrie and Others," the defendants being Judges of the colony of Trinidad, tried in London in May 1894, before the late Lord Chief Justice and a special jury, when, notwithstanding that the jury found a verdict in express terms that one of the defendants oppressively and with malice overstrained his judicial powers to the prejudice of the plaintiff and the wilful perversion of justice, and found a verdict for the plaintiff for £500, the Lord Chief Justice directed judgment to be entered for the defendant on the ground that such an action did not lie against a Judge, which judgment has been upheld

303
by the Court of Appeal; and whether the Government is prepared to initiate or support legislation with a view to rectifying or declaring the present state of the law upon the points involved in these judgments. The House would observe that a Constitutional point—namely, the immunity of the Judges, was involved in his question. It was not his intention now to enter deeply into that question, but he ventured most earnestly to call the attention of the Government and the House to do so. The case, briefly, was as follows:—Mr. Anderson practised as a surgeon in the island of Tobago, afterwards part of the colony of Trinidad. He was a man of considerable standing, having been colonial surgeon, a justice of the peace, and twice elected a member of the legislative body of Tobago. Actions were brought against him and others informâ pauperis irregularly. The colonial Judges were said to have acted oppressively. They demanded excessive bail; they imprisoned him in default of bail, and refused him leave to appeal to the Queen in Council. The affair caused a deal of local agitation, and petitions were sent to Her Majesty's Government. Royal Commissioners were sent out to inquire into the administration of justice in the colony of Trinidad, and on their report, in which they spoke of "judicial persecution," one Judge was removed from the colony and another was interdicted. In order to secure some personal redress, Mr. Anderson brought an action for damages in England against the two surviving Judges—for one of the Judges had meanwhile died—and the jury, after seven days' trial, found a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury declared that the defendant "oppressively and with malice overstrained his judicial powers to the prejudice of the plaintiff, and the wilful perversion of justice." Before this trial came on a Divisional Court had refused to stay the action, and the late Lord Chief Justice, before whom the case was tried, allowed it to go to a jury. The late Lord Chief Justice, in face of the verdict of the jury, directed judgment to be entered for defendant, and the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. The question, therefore, arose under the law as it was now declared, whether a person having obtained such a verdict that a Judge has oppressively and with malice
304
overstrained his judicial powers to the prejudice of the plaintiff, and the wilful perversion of justice, has any remedy against the Judge, and, if so, what remedy? He ventured to submit that there was no apparent remedy, and he was not prepared to say that such a remedy could or should be devised. It might be that the disadvantages of such a remedy would overbalance the advantages. He was unwilling to suppose that such another case was likely to arise, for the general and well-grounded respect felt by British subjects for the integrity of the judiciary anticipated the great improbability of its recurrence. Still, this unhappy instance was calculated to raise the apprehension that a Judge might again be guilty of similar practices, and if so guilty, would certainly be held not liable to afford personal redress for injuries inflicted by him. It would appear that after these judgments no person in similar circumstances would be allowed to go to a jury. Thus, "Anderson v. Gorrie and Others "appeared to be important as a test case, and the general question of judicial immunity as declared therein was being now taken up, for the matter was becoming recognised as no longer a personal one, but as a question of principle. Pressure had recently been brought to bear upon some Members of the House of Commons by memorials and letters from their constituents, especially from medical men, who were naturally greatly interested in the matter. In consequence a similar, though not identical, question was being put that day in the House of Commons, and it was thought well that the matter should be brought forward in both Houses simultaneously. On being invited to perform the task, he felt it to be his duty to ask the question. He had less reluctance, and indeed, some pleasure in bringing the matter forward, from the thought that it was possible that members of the judicial body might feel inclined to welcome any legislative enactment which should either amend or declare the law upon this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid no one could complain of the noble Lord in bringing forward the question, or of the kindly and judicial spirit in which it had been treated. He had some difficulty in answering the specific matter of the question, for the reason that the decision

305
of the Court of Appeal was still open to appeal to that House, and he, therefore, did not want to express an opinion judicially upon it. But, speaking generally, an action did not lie against a Judge at the instance of a suitor who thought himself injured by the judgment of the Judge. The immunity of the Judges from such action was of great importance in the interests of justice. For centuries Judges had been appointed in this country against whom no imputation could be made, and their high character was due in a great measure to their independence, not only of plaintiff and defendant, but their independence of the Government also. There was no pecuniary remedy for a suitor against a Judge, but any Judge could be removed from his office by an Address from both Houses of Parliament.

UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
THE PRIME MINISTER,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said: The matter has been before the House more than once, and opinions in favour of mating this railway have been expressed on both sides of the House. It is about four or five years since, standing in this place, I first urged that such a railway should be made, and I am glad to be able to move this Bill, carrying out that view at the present time. I regret that circumstances, which I daresay were inevitable, have prevented the Measure being undertaken before. There are two considerations of important public policy which justify a departure in this case from the ordinary practice of Parliament in respect to rail ways in any part of Her Majesty's possessions. In the first place I believe it is felt that the construction of such a railway would be the most fatal blow to the slave trade which could possibly be delivered—["hear, hear!"]—because all slaves are now conducted to the coast by caravans. It is needless to say that if this railway be made slaves will not be conducted by it. Put the railway will have a much more important effect than that. It will dry up the supply of caravans, and the trade which supports them. Caravans would cease to be profitable, and therefore would
306
cease to be used, because the difference in the cost of sending 60 lbs. on a man's head and sending it by railway is a sun' too enormous not to have an immediate and dominating effect. Therefore, the state of things that will come to pass will be that caravans will have passed out of use, and if a slave caravan is found going down to the coast, its character will be proclaimed by the very fact that it is a caravan, and it cannot possibly escape the vigilance of the authorities or avoid the punishment due to such a crime. There is another consideration which I think recent events have brought before us. What has happened in Matabeleland shows that it is a position not exempt from danger, when the assertion of your authority is very far in advance of your power of moving up either supplies or forces, or any other instrument of your dominion, so that the authority may be challenged, and yet you may not be able to take with rapidity the full measures necessary to assert it. There is no doubt that the authority of our Protectorate in Uganda is completely recognised, and that there is every prospect of a peaceful, and, I hope, rapid development of that country. Put still the circumstance exists that it is separated from the coast by 600 miles, and of that 600 miles the first hundred are almost entirely waterless, and that the tsetse fly prevails in every part of the road. The result is that all communications have to be conducted by caravans, and every kind of supply has to be carried in loads of 60 lbs. on men's heads. What has happened in the South of Africa shows it is a state of things which it is not wise to acquiesce in permanently, and I think not only the prosperity of Uganda but its security, and the facility with which the advantages of British rule will be extended to it, will be largely increased when we are able to announce that this railway is complete. Financial measures have been taken, so that it will progress, I trust, without delay or change of policy or purpose, and I believe it will have a most beneficial effect in fostering British trade and establishing the newly-born dominion of Great Britain on that continent. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not rise to say a single word on the subject of the Measure, partly because

307
it is a Bill purely financial in its character, and, therefore, I take it, outside our competence, and from the more gratifying reason that I fancy that the question of the Uganda railroad is one of those rare but none the less grateful questions on which both sides of the House are agreed. ["Hear, hear!"] I can only assure the noble Marquess, in respect to something that fell from him, that the late Government took the earliest opportunity practicable in their judgment to submit the proposal for the railway to Parliament. What I would strongly say is that I believe that, great as your expenditure has been for putting down the slave trade on the coast of Africa, vast as are the efforts you have put forward for the abolition of that horrible traffic all over the world, you will never have struck a blow at it so fatal and direct as the construction of this railway that the Government have set on foot. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not believe anybody who could see at all clearly the ordinary results of ordinary causes, could doubt for a moment that, when it fell to be the duty of the Government to take over the remote territory of Uganda, that it would be necessary, as soon as may be, to connect it with the coast by a railroad. I should not, if I may say so, advise the noble Marquess to base his argument for the railroad much on the existence of the fly, because I have always understood that the fly existed but sparsely on the route, and that only for a few miles on the coast. That is a minor criticism on which I do not wish to dwell. What I would rather have heard from the Prime Minister than the arguments in which I agree with him is, what is the cause of the great increase of the estimates for the railroad beyond that originally laid before us. Of course, in these matters, one is well aware that the cost and the estimate are usually figures that are materially different. None of us have carried out the smallest enterprise without realising that truth to its fullest and most painful extent. But I am afraid this is not a difference between cost and estimate, but a great rise in the estimate itself, and I think the cost will rise not
308
disproportionately; and it would have been more gratifying to the House if the Prime Minister had been able to tell us how the increase arises, and had not confined himself to the arguments in which we cordially support him. [Cheers.]
THE PRIME MINISTER: I hope this is a covering estimate—that is to say, that if anything it is in excess of what the expense is likely to be. The noble Lord asked me the cause of the increase of the estimate. I must answer that it is due to the original sin of the engineer. I never heard of an engineer who was not too sanguine a man. But in this case there is a special cause for the increase of the estimate—the necessary inadequacy of the original survey. I do not hint that anyone was to blame, because over such a vast and unknown territory it was inevitable that the survey should be rather summary, and it has been found necessary to alter the course in some places and undertake engineering difficulties more formidable than originally contemplated, and these considerations have increased the estimate. I think, perhaps, that the weight of the rails has been rather increased over what was originally proposed, but that has been done on the best engineering advice. But I am not skilful enough to go into all the details on which the rise of the estimate is justified. I think the noble Earl will find satisfaction for his curiosity in the papers already published. At all events I think he will join with me in saying it is better to put before Parliament a full estimate of what we believe is likely to be the cost, and so avoid the reproach which might be directed against us that we consciously skimped the estimate so as to make it more acceptable to Parliament.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not deny that Ministerial statements and explanations are usually anticipated in the daily Press or in Papers submitted to Parliament. I only wished to have an official statement from the noble Marquess.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  PART I.—LAND LAW.
  Clause 1,—
  PART I.—LAND LAW.

    FAIR RENTS.—AMENDMENT AS TO IMPROVEMENTS.
    (1.) Where the Court fix a fair rent fair holding, the Court shall ascertain and record in the form of a Schedule, unless both landlord and tenant shall otherwise request—
    (a) The several classes of land found upon the holding, marking each class on a map, and showing in respect of each class the estimated area thereon and the sum which should be the fair rent thereof (per acre or per class) on the assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord;
    (b) the annual sum which should be the fair rent of the holding on the assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord;
    (c) the condition as to cultivation, deterioration, or otherwise of the holding and the buildings thereon;
    (d) the improvements made wholly or partly by the tenant or at bis cost, and with respect to each such improvement—

    (i) the nature, character, and present capital value thereof, and the increased letting value duo thereto;

    (ii) the date (so near as can be ascertained) at which the same was made; and

    (iii) the deduction from the rent made on account thereof;

    (c) the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect of each such improvement;
    (f) the improvements made wholly or partly by or at the cost of, or acquired by, the landlord;
    (g) such other matters in relation to the holding as may have been taken into account in fixing the fair rent thereof, or as may be prescribed from time to time, including all such particulars as are set forth in the form in the Second schedule to this Act (so far as such particulars are not inconsistent with the other provisions of this section), such form being similar to the form (commonly known as the "Pink schedule") which the assistant Commissioners have for some time previous to the passing of this Act been required by the Land Commission to fill up when fixing the fair rent of a holding; and
    (h) the fair rent of the holding;
    and a certified copy of the record shall be sent by post to each party, and the record shall be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody.
    (2.) No rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of an improvement made by the tenant on a holding by reason only of the work constituting such improvement not being suitable to the holding.
    (3.) For the purpose of the Land Law Acts, as amended by this Act, a tenant shall be deemed to have been fully paid or compensated for every improvement made by him in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration.
    (4) For the purpose of the Land Law Acts, as amended by this Act, a tenant shall not be deemed to have been paid or compensated for any improvement not made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, except to the extent to which the Count, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, are of opinion that valuable consideration has been given by the landlord in respect of the improvement.
    (5.) A contract by a tenant not to claim, on quitting his holding, compensation for any improvement made by him shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of any improvement except to the extent to which the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, are of opinion that valuable consideration has been given by the landlord in respect of the entering into that contract.
    (6.) Section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of an improvement made by the tenant, if made 20 years before the passing of the said Act, and not being a permanent building or reclamation of waste land.
    (7.) For the purpose of this section valuable consideration shall not be held to have been given by reason of the mere letting of the land on lease or otherwise, or the mere enjoyment by the tenant of any improvement where the rent of the holding was not fixed, reduced, abated, or, after the improvement was made, allowed to remain unaltered with the object of recouping the tenant for his expenditure of capital and labour in making the improvement; and, in the case of an improvement made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, such object shall be implied where not expressed.
    (8.) No deduction shall be made from the fair rent named in this section by reason of the mere right of occupation vested in the tenant.
    (9.) Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and Sub-section (1) of the same section in the case of sales after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not have effect in the case of applications to fix a fair rent.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AVAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE)moved to leave out Sub section (1) and to insert instead thereof—

    AMENDMENT AS TO IMPROVEMENTS.
    (1.) Where the Court fix a fair rent for a holding, the Court shall ascertain and record in

    311
    the form of a schedule, unless both landlord and tenant shall otherwise request—
    (a) the annual sum which should be the fair rent of the holding on the assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord;
    (b) the condition as to cultivation, deterioration, or otherwise of the holding and the buildings thereon;
    (c) the improvements made wholly or partly by the tenant or at his cost, and with respect to each such improvement—

    (i) the nature, character, and present capital value thereof, and the increased letting value duo thereto;

    (ii) the date (so near as can be ascertained) at which the same was made; and

    (iii) the deduction from the rent made on account thereof;

    (d) the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect of each such improvement;
    (e) the improvements made wholly or partly by or at the cost of, or acquired by, the landlord;
    (f) such other matters in relation to the holding as may have been taken into account in fixing the fair rent thereof, or as may be prescribed; and
    (g) the fair rent of the holding;
    and the said schedule shall be in the form set out in the First schedule to this Act or in such other form as may he prescribed, and a certified copy of the record shall on the prescribed application be sent by post to each party, and the record shall be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper custody.
    The noble Marquess said the House would recollect that in Committee Clause 1 was considerably modified at the instance of Lord Templetown, who earnestly and successfully pressed on the House the necessity of requiring from the Court fuller particulars of the data on which their decisions as to fair rents were arrived at. He hoped his noble Friend would not take it amiss if he frankly told him that he was not entirely satisfied with the shape in which the Amendments had left the clause. If their Lordships would look at the Bill they would see that, in the first two or three lines of the clause, the Court was directed to ascertain and record in the form of a schedule a great number of particulars set out in the following subsections. After these particulars were enumerated, the Court was, in Sub-section G, further directed to ascertain such other matters as had been taken into account in fixing the fair rent, including all such
    312
    particulars as were set forth in the Second schedule to the Act, and it was explained that the Second schedule was to be virtually identical with the pink Paper of which their Lordships had heard so much. It would be evident to the House that this schedule mentioned in Sub-section G would be different from the schedule which, at the beginning of the clause, the Court was directed to frame and supply to the litigants. That schedule would contain the whole contents of the schedule to be embodied in the Act, but a good deal more. There would in short, be two schedules, and he was afraid a good deal of complication would arise. Now what the Government proposed was that there should be only one schedule, and that that schedule should be printed with the Act of Parliament. They would find in the Amendment in his name a draft schedule containing the particulars contained in the earlier part of Clause 1, and also the contents of the pink Paper, but amplified and with an addition which he knew some of his noble Friends were anxious to have made, the addition of a money column showing the rent per acre or class of the different sorts of land. ["Hear, hear!"] The schedule in that form would be supplied to the parties on application and he believed it would contain all the information they could desire or expect.
    *VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNacknowledged the conciliatory attitude of the Government towards the Amendment to the clause. He was gratified with the way in which the noble Marquess had dealt with them. He himself had carefully gone through the schedule attached to the list of the Amendments, and as far as he could see they embodied all the recommendations which he had put before the House in such a form that he could express his complete approval of it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAhad given notice of his intention to move, after Clause 1, to insert the following clause:—
    Where the Court have once fixed a fair rent for a holding, no further revision of rent shall

    313
    take place at the end of the first or any subsequent judicial term except in relation to—

    (a.) A rise or fall, if any, in the price of produce proper to be grown on the holding (due allowance being made for a rise or fall, if any, in the cost of production); and

    (b.) any improvement which the tenant proves—

    (1.) he has executed without compensation before the commencement of the first statutory term; and

    (2.) has not already been taken into account in fixing a fair rent.

    And, in the event of a revision being made, the Court shall send by post to each party a certified statement showing how the fair rent has been arrived at.
    The noble Lord said it would be within the recollection of the House that Lord Monteagle and himself proposed a clause almost identical, dealing with the principle on which Sub-Commissioners were to go in ascertaining what was a fair rent, and an appeal was made by the Prime Minister to withdraw the clauses, in view of their great importance and the short time the Government had to consider them. Lord Monteagle fell in with the appeal; but after consultation, he himself had thought it his duty to persevere with the clause. But before the House divided the Prime Minister again made a strong appeal to him not to divide the House, on the same grounds that the time was short, the Amendment having only appeared on the Paper that morning; and the importance of the question was so great, it was hardly fair to expect the Government to accept the Amendment at such short notice. He felt the force of that appeal, and although the Divisions taken immediately before and after made it quite certain that if he had persevered with the Amendment they would have had the power to add it to the Bill, he consented not to then press it, on the distinct assurance of the noble Marquess that before the Report stage he would consider it. He rose to ask the noble Marquess what had been the result of that consideration, and whether he could, on behalf of the Government, accept the clause?
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEacknowledged the noble Earl's courtesy in postponing his Amendment. Since then the Government had carefully considered the matter. He fully understood the objects with which the noble
    314
    Earl had made this Motion. He would like to see—as would most of their Lordships—the Land Commission Court given something in the nature of a definite basis upon which to proceed. They would find, not only in Ireland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom, that two perfectly honest valuers would differ widely in their estimate of the value of the same farm, and one had even known cases where the same valuer would take a somewhat different view of the value of a farm according to the conditions of climate under which he had visited it. The noble Earl asked their Lordships so to arrange matters that these personal factors should be, as far as possible, excluded, and that on each revaluation of the farm the Court should proceed upon the basis of the original valuation, modifying it only in relation to alterations in the price of produce or the improvements executed by the tenant. That, at first sight, was an extremely attractive proposal. It certainly was not one which could, for a moment, be represented as being put forward entirely in the interest of the landlord, because one effect of it would be to transfer to the tenant a very considerable part of what was usually spoken of as the unearned increment. But the clause as it stood was so drafted that the Court would have to proceed upon the basis of the fair rent first fixed upon the holding. As he said the other evening, he believed it was notorious that the fair rents fixed by the Commission during the first few years of its existence were extremely unequal and untrustworthy, and they could not possibly accept these fair rents—which had been distinctly impugned by so many noble Lords—as a solid basis for the fixing of future revised fair rents. But there were other difficulties which stood in the way of the adoption of the recommendation of the noble Earl. He should mention in the first place that, if they were to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite to the present proposed new clause, the new system could only come into operation 15 years hence —that was to say, upon the second and subsequent revisions of rent by the Court of Land Commission. He was not at all clear that it was worth while for the sake of

    315
    what, after all, would be a comparatively remote improvement in the procedure of the Court, to introduce the novel and untried system which was recommended to them. The revision of the rent in relation to prices sounded an extremely simple matter, but he did not think it was quite as simple as the noble Earl supposed. In the first place, the noble Earl, who had paid so much attention to agricultural questions, must be perfectly aware that a fall in prices of a certain percentage did not by any means necessarily involve the result that rents should fall in the same ratio. If a farmer lost, upon the whole of the commodities which he extracted from the land, a certain percentage by a fall in price, it might very often follow that his actual loss would be equivalent to a very much larger percentage of the rent he paid the landlord. Then there were other questions by which the calculation would be complicated. There might be a cheapening of the commodities sold by the tenant, or, on the other hand, a cheapening of those he had to buy. Again, the products of the farm might have altered in the intervening time, or the whole condition of the neighbourhood might have changed. All these were points which the Court would have to consider, and he was afraid that by telling them that they were to consider the fluctuations of prices in reference to the tenant's rent they were, after all, not giving them a very much increased measure of that guidance which the noble Earl was so anxious to afford them. He must frankly tell the noble Lord that he regarded this proposal, excellent in its intentions, as somewhat of the character of a counsel of perfection, and he would respectfully urge upon him not to press it on the House.
    LORD MONTEAGLEremarked that the noble Marquess said that varying rents in accordance with the variation of prices was not so simple as it looked. Quite so. But what was the present procedure? The Land Court at the present time had to take all these matters into consideration, and, in addition, had to take into consideration the value of the land, and go upon the land and value it. "What he understood the noble Earl to aim at was to restrict the Land Court to the
    316
    consideration of these fluctuations, which were independent of the action of the tenant, and only to exclude from their consideration the value of the land. Another objection of the noble Marquess was that the ratio of variation of the rents would not be direct—that they could not say that rents were varied as directly as prices varied. He thought that point was amply provided for by the parenthesis in Sub-section A of the noble Lord's clause. But no doubt the principal objection, and, as he had admitted, the fatal objection to the consideration of the proposal at this stage, was that of novelty, and admitting, as he did, that it was a novel proposal, he ventured to ask the noble Lord opposite to be content with the discussion he had raised, and not to press the matter further.
    THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid if this Amendment was negatived he would ask to say a few words in reply to the noble Marquess when the other Amendment came on.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid he thought it would be unfortunate if it were to go forth that there was no answer to what the noble Marquess had said on various points. It was quite true, as the noble Marquess had said, that different valuers took different views of the same holding and of different holdings, and he had also said that climatic conditions might affect the same valuer in valuing the same farm. He was told it was not an uncommon thing for Sub-Commissioners to value a farm when there was a foot of snow on the ground, and he quite admitted that those were climatic conditions which might lead to various and, no doubt, erratic conclusions. The next argument of the noble Marquess was the deprivation which this clause might cause the landlord of part of the unearned increment of the farm, such as might accrue from the propinquity of a railway. He was quite certain landlords would be very willing to give up a problematical advantage for the sake of the advantage of a firm and definite principle beneath their feet. Who ever heard in Ireland of a Sub-Commissioner allowing an increase of rent because a railway had come close

    317
    to a farm. The noble Marquess also said that the fair rents which were fixed immediately after 1881, were not fair rents at all. They admitted that these people were incapable of fixing fair rents, and yet they were now sending them out for another term of 15 years on their duties without any principle or guidance whatever. He believed in so far as it was possible to do so, that a great many of the effects of the re-valuation of 1881 not having been completed, were remedied by the Act of 1887, which was based on prices. With regard to what the noble Marquess said as to a fall prices not involving a fall of rent of similar or precisely the same amount, he thought the noble Marquess would recollect that he did ample justice to that argument in the speech in which he introduced the clause. Then the noble Marquess and the noble Lord opposite both addressed an argument founded on the novelty of the system. But though the actual system might be a novel one, the principle was not a novel one at all. It was really the principle on which they acted in making voluntary reductions of rent in England. All it asked was to extend for the benefit and guidance of those to whom they intrusted those enormous and irresponsible powers in Ireland, the same principle on which they gratuitously acted for the benefit of all parties concerned, and to their great advantage, he thought, in England. In view of the period of the Session at which they had arrived, and of the appeal of the noble Marquess, he would not press this clause further, but he ventured to hope that the next time that Government attempted a final and complete settlement of this question this principle would find such favour that it would be embodied in the Bill.
    Clause 3,—

    STATUTORY TERM AND BIGINNING OF JUDICIAL RENT.
    (1.) On the expiration of a statutory term in a present tenancy the tenancy shall continue a present tenancy subject to the same rent and conditions (including the statutory conditions) as during the statutory term, until the tenancy is determined, or a new statutory term for the holding begins, and an application to fix a fair rent may he made at any time during such continuance of the tenancy; and no objection to such application shall he allowed which could
    318
    have been but was not taken upon the application for a previous judicial rent, or being then term was overruled.
    (2.) Where the Court on application fix a judicial lent for a holding, the judicial rent and statutory term shall begin from the gale day next after the date of application, or, if a preceding statutory term is then current, from any later gale day on which that statutory term expires.
    (3.) The judicial lent fixed by order of the Court for a holding shall, as from the gale day from which it begins, be the rent payable by the tenant of the holding; and where it differs from the previous rent, whether or not a judicial rent, then in respect of the period which may have elapsed since the gale day from which it began, the difference, if the judicial rent so fixed is higher than the previous rent, shall be paid by the tenant, and if the judicial rent so fixed is lower, may, if it has been actually paid by the tenant, be deducted from any rent subsequently payable by him, unless the judicial rent exceeds fifty pounds a year, in which case the difference may be deducted from any rent subsequently payable by him to the landlord to whom such difference has been paid, or to his personal representatives, or where the estate of such landlord has determined may be recovered from such landlord or his personal representatives.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to insert at the end of the clause—
    "Provided that where the judicial rent does not exceed £50 a year, the amount made by the tenant may be recovered from the person to whom the difference was paid, or his personal representatives."
    The proviso, his Lordship said, enabled a new landlord, from whom a small tenant had deducted part of his payment of rent, to recover from the former landlord.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4,—

    JUDICIAL TERM IN CASES OF AGREEMENTS.
    In the case of a tenant who applied to the Court under Section sixty of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, on the first occasion on which it sat, to have a fair rent fixed, and who, since making that application, has signed an agreement under Sub-section (6) of Section eight of the said Act, the statutory term so created shall, where the judicial rent has been received as having accrued due from the gale day succeeding the date of application, for the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, be held to date from the day on which the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, came into force.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to leave out from the words "gale day" to the end of the clause, and insert the word—
    "next after the day on which the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, came into force, be held for the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent to date from that gale day "
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5,—

    EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN HOLDINGS.
    (1.) The Land Law Acts, except Section seven of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (which amends the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect of compensation for improvements), shall not apply to the following tenancies:—
    (a.) To a tenancy in any holding which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, or the main object of the letting of which was for a residence:
    (b.) To a tenancy in any holding which substantially consists of—

    (i) land being or forming part of a home farm; or

    (ii) land which when first demised was demesne, and which the provisions of the contract of tenancy, or the circumstances of the case, show was intended to be preserved as demesne or resumed as demesne by the landlord; or

    (iii) land incorporated in a demesne by the tenant, and forming part of a demesne at the time the application to fix a fair rent is made:

    (c.) To a tenancy in a holding (other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm) which is let to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture—

    (i) if it is of the rateable value of upwards of fifty pounds; or

    (ii) if the tenant does not actually reside on the holding, or where the holding adjoins or is ordinarily used with another holding, then on the latter holding.

    (2.) Where a distinct and substantive part of the property held under one demise is demesne land, or is not agricultural or pastoral in its character, or is an incorporeal hereditament, and the court consider that that part is not the substantial part of such property, the court may, if they are of opinion that, apart from the fixing of a fair rent, the separation of the property into two parts will not diminish the value of the landlord's interest therein, direct that that part shall thenceforth be, or, if it is an incorporeal hereditament, be treated as, a separate holding, and shall, unless the tenancy has expired, be held at such rent during the continuance of the tenancy as the court determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise,
    320
    and the court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the said Acts shall apply to that remainder as if it were a separate holding.
    (3.) Where a holding is held by joint tenants or tenants in common, and such tenants have worked and occupied separate portions thereof, and the division of the holding was made prior to the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the court, on the application of any joint tenant or tenant in common, may, if it think that it is just, and that no portion of the holding, when divided, will be of less than ten pounds valuation, fix a fair rent upon the portion of the holding so separately occupied.
    (4.) Nothing in this section shall extend to any holding in respect of which a judicial rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act.
    THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved to omit the words "during the continuance of the tenancy."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved the following proviso to Sub-section (2):—
    "Provided, however, that the tenancy in respect of the portion so treated as a separate holding shall be determinable at any time by the landlord on giving six calendar months' previous notice of his intention so to do."
    The object of the proviso was to provide that if a holding, partly agricultural and partly non-agricultural, had been divided and, therefore, one part of it was outside the Act, it should be in the power of the landlord, on giving six months' notice, to resume possession of that part which was not under the Land Acts.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he was afraid they could not accept the Amendment. If the tenancy was a tenancy-at-will the landlord could, of course, terminate the tenancy of that part of the holding which the Court decided not to be within the Land Acts; but if the tenancy were a leasehold then they thought that the lease should run on, and that the tenant should hold both that part of the holding which came under the Acts and that which did not come under the Acts, according to the terms of his covenant.
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    The EARL of ARRANhad an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Subsection (3), but before his Lordship moved,
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the House was rather in a singular position with regard to this sub-section. He was told that it was, as a matter of fact, struck out of the Bill in Committee, but it was printed in its place in the Bill. He presumed they must regard it as not, strictly speaking, in the Bill. He had, however, a suggestion to make to the noble Earl, and that was that they should reinstate the sub-section in the Bill, striking out the words, "that no portion of the holding, when divided, will be of less than £10 valuation," and then putting in at the end of the clause, with the object of protecting the landlord in the manner which the noble Earl desired, these words:—
    "Provided that such order fixing a fair rent shall not have the effect of increasing the liability of the landlord for rates and taxes in respect of the holding, and such order shall not he made if the Court are of opinion that the interests of the landlord in the holding will lie injuriously affected thereby otherwise than by the mere fixing of a fair rent."
    It seemed to him that these words gave the landlord the full amount of protection which the noble Earl could desire for him.
    THE EARL OF ARRANacknowledged the courtesy of the noble Marquess for taking into consideration the mistake made in reference to this sub-section. He would just like to say that, though that was one of the objections put before him as to the clause, it was not the chief one, which was the permission to subdivide at all. If he was in order, he would suggest that the consideration of the matter might be put off for an hour or two, or until a later stage of the Bill. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] Under all the circumstances he would be disposed to accept the proposition made—["hear, hear!"]—but he thought the words "consent in writing" by the landlord might be inserted. ["No, no!"] Did he understand the noble Marquess to consent to this?
    *THE MARQUESS OK LANSDOWNEsaid it would be impossible to accept those words. As he was advised, the clause was intended to deal with cases
    322
    of joint tenancy where the tenants held in a sort of rundale, and where a de facto division of the holding had taken place, each tenant taking a section of the holding but remaining liable for the rent of the whole. It would be an unheard-of thing that the consent of the landlord in writing to the division of the holding should be obtained. If that was stipulated, the effect would be to render the clause absolutely nugatory.
    THE EARL OF ARRANsaid that, as he understood the clause, it would only come into effect where tenants occupied separate portions. He did not understand that rundale would be affected by it.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the original tenancy would have been a joint tenancy, and the tenants would subsequently have divided it among themselves.
    VISCOUNT DE VESCIappealed to the Government to postpone the sub-section to a later stage in order that it might be more fully understood. ["No, no!"]
    LORD MONTEAGLEalso made an appeal that the matter might be postponed.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORput the Question that the sub-section, as amended, be reinstated, and declared "The Contents have it." Immediately several Lords exclaimed, "Not-content!" and, after the lapse of a few seconds,
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR,addressing the Earl of Arran, said, "Do I understand the noble Lord to challenge a Division?"
    THE EARL OF ARRAN: Yes.
    The House was cleared for a Division, but, on the Question again being put,
    THE LORD CHANCELLORdeclared, "The Contents have it."
    Sub-section ordered to be re-inserted.
    Clause 6,—

    EXCLUSION BY SUB-LETTING OF HOLDING.
    (1) For the purpose of the Land Law Acts, the tenant of a holding shall be deemed to be in bona fide occupation thereof notwithstanding—

    (a) that any dwelling-house on the holding, not being the dwelling in which the tenant for the time being resides, and not having been erected by the tenant in breach of his contract of tenancy or

    323
    of a statutory condition, is sublet to or in the occupation of another person; or

    (b) that any other part of the holding is, otherwise than in breach of the contract of tenancy or of a statutory condition, sublet to or in the occupation of another person, if the sub-letting was made before the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, or if it was substantially in substitution for a letting existing at that date; provided that the amount of land so sub-let shall not exceed one-eighth of the holding, nor one statute acre for each house or allotment, nor five acres in the aggregate.

    Provided also that—

    (i) for the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this section, a breach of the contract of tenancy shall not he deemed to have taken place if the landlord waived such breach;

    (ii) the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply unless the Court think it reasonable to entertain the application having regard to the acreage of the holding and to any other matter which they think should be taken into consideration, and the Court may entertain the application notwithstanding that any such house or part of a holding is occupied by a person to whom it has been sub-let in contravention of Section two of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.

    (2.) Where a part of the property held under one demise is sub-let, and the property was let to the tenant subject to the tenancy of some other person in the part sub-let, the Court may, in any case to which Sub-section (1) of this section does not apply, direct that the part so sub-let shall thenceforth be, or if it is an incorporeal hereditament be treated as, a separate holding, and (unless the application to the Court is made on the expiration of a lease) that the same shall be held during the continuance of the tenancy at such rent as the Court determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the Court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act shall apply to that remainder, as if it were a separate holding.
    Provided that, if the landlord so elect, the Court shall, in any case to which this sub-section applies, order that the tenant of the part so sub-let shall he the tenant of such landlord as his immediate landlord.
    (3.) The sub-letting of any such dwelling-house as is referred to in Sub-section (1) (a) of this section during the continuance of a statutory term or after its expiration shall not be deemed to he a breach of any statutory condition, nor shall the Second section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, apply to any such sub-letting, whether made before or after passing of this Act.
    THE EARL OF ARRANmoved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), after the word "condition," to insert the words" or enactment." He said the Amendment was intended to provide that the subletting referred to in the clause should not include sub-letting contrary to the Act of 1881.
    *LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the introduction of the word "enactment" in line 2 did not appear necessary, and in line 5, as the next Amendment proposed would be contradictory of the later words of the clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF ARRANsaid he would also ask leave to withdraw the next Amendment, namely, after the word "condition" to insert the word "enactment."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF ARRANmoved, in paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), after the word "person," to insert the words:—
    "unless it be shown that such sub-letting was made by the tenant for the purpose of making a profit by the sub-letting, or not solely for the duo cultivation of his holding and."
    He said he understood that the object of this clause was to prevent sub-letting being made for purposes of profit—that the sub-letting should be confined to what was necessary for the due cultivation of the holding. But as the clause now stood, he believed there was nothing in it to prevent the tenant building dwelling-houses on his holding not necessary to its due cultivation and letting them out for profit. None of those houses would be under the clause. It seemed to him that a tenant in this way might build and sub-let any number of houses on his holding without any regard to the area specified.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he feared the Amendment would narrow the operation of the section more than was desirable. The effect of the Amendment would be to render it impossible for a farmer to sub-let a cottage except to a labourer on the farm. Let them take the case, for example, of an arable farm which had been laid down

    325
    to grass. A number of cottages appropriate to an arable farm might be built on that farm, but the same number of houses would cease to be appropriate when the farm was laid down to grass. Why should not one of those cottages be sub-let to a suitable tenant?
    THE EARL OF ARRANsaid he had in his mind that under the clause the tenant might be able to build a villa on his holding in the proximity of a town, the effect of which might be to prevent the landlord ever resuming the land for building purposes.
    LORD HARLECHthought that if they allowed any number of cottages to be erected on a farm, they would soon have to put the Congested Districts Act into force.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that the erection of such buildings as the noble Earl contemplated would be a breach of the statutory condition.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to transpose Sub-section (3), placing it before Sub-section (2).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8,—

    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 been accustomed to exercise any privilege over land belonging to the landlord, the withholding of which privilege would materially 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 theretofore, that which he previously exorcised 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.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, after the word "theretofore," to insert the words "or such other restrictions and conditions as may be agreed on by the landlord and tenant." He said that this and the following Amendment were additions to the new clause with regard
    326
    to turbary and easements. They had not provided for the enforcement of necessary regulations for the exercise of these privileges, and the two Amendments enabled the Court to make arrangements for their being exercised in a manner consistent with the interests of the estate and consistent with the practice and usage which had hitherto been followed. ["Hear, hear!"]
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new Sub-section:—
    "(2.) Where an Order securing the exercise of any such privilege is so made, the Court, during the continuance of the statutory term, may, upon the application of the landlord or of any other tenant exercising the like privilege, restrain the tenant from exercising the privilege in any manner than that authorised by the Order or by any reasonable regulations of the landlord made in pursuance of the Order."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9,—

    LETTINGS BY PERSONS NOT ABSOLUTE OWNERS.
    (1.) The Land Law Acts shall apply and be 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 be or be 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, mortagor 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.
    (2.) 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 be in the same position as if this section had not been enacted.

    (3.) This section shall not apply to a tenancy created by a limited owner in a holding the substantial part of which at the date of the letting was demesne land, whore 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 (2), to leave out the words—
    "has been fixed after the passing of this Act," and to insert the words "has, after the passing of this Act, been fixed for the first time."
    Amendment agreed to.
    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 sub-letting of lands and tenements," or of an agreement against subletting 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 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 MONTEAGLEmoved, after the words "of this Act by," to leave out the word "a" and to insert the words "an immediate." He had put down the Amendment merely for the purpose of raising a drafting question which he put to the noble Marquess in Committee. To the ordinary layman he thought it would appear obvious that the words "landlord" in the second line of the clause and "lessee" in the last-line but two, which words seemed to refer to the same person, would be more conveniently covered by one expression. He therefore suggested the insertion of the words "an immediate landlord" in both cases. In both cases the middleman was the person referred to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEadmitted that at first sight the wording was a little puzzling, but he had had the point inquired into, and he was assured the wording of the clause was perfectly correct as it now stood.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 15,—

    EJECTMENTS FOR NONPAYMENT OF RENT IN CASE OF HOLDINGS UNDER LAND LAW ACTS.
    In the case of any ejectment which shall be or has been brought for the nonpayment 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 sixty to seventy-one 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 due to such gale day shall he recoverable by the landlord as if the same were a debt due to him by the occupying tenant, but shall not be recovered by ejectment for nonpayment of rent or distress. 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 Thirtieth section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, nor to any arrears of rent the subject of any such Order.
    VISCOUNT DE VESCImoved, after the words "sum of two years' rent," to insert the words—
    "together with the costs on the undertaking in respect thereof by the said Act required."
    The Amendment was practically the same he moved in Committee when the Government promised to consider the matter by Report. In all legislation subsequent to 1860, costs were expressly mentioned, and he thought it would be satisfactory if the noble Marquess could consent to the insertion of the words.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he was told the clause as it stood met his noble Friend's object, but they were willing to insert words which would render the point no longer doubtful. In line 26 he proposed to insert after the

    329
    word "lodged" the words "in respect of the rent und arrears exclusive of the costs"; and after the word "however" in line 27 the words, as a new section, "but nothing herein contained shall relieve the tenant from paying or undertaking to pay costs as provided in the sub-section."
    VISCOUNT DE VESCIasked leave to withdraw his Amendment
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved after the word "lodged" to insert the words "in respect of rent and arrears exclusive of the costs."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to insert after the words "Provided, however" as a new sub-section, the words—
    (2.) "But nothing heroin contained shall relieve the tenant from paying or undertaking to pay costs as provided in the sub-section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHregretted that his noble Friend had not been able to insert in the clause some words which would have the effect of saving the hanging gale in the case of a great number of estates. As the clause now stood a landlord would be compelled where a tenant owed one year's rent immediately to take ejectment proceedings. This morning he received a letter from Lord Carlingford, in which that nobleman said the effect would be very mischievous, not so much in the interest of the landlord, but in the interest of the tenants. ["Hear, hear!"] On Lord Carlingford's estate there had been the custom of a hanging gale for one year, and the noble Lord looked with considerable apprehension on the very invidious position in which he would now be placed, for he would be practically compelled, at the very moment a tenant owed him one year's rent, to issue ejectment proceedings. The clause would result in hardship to a large class of tenants throughout Ireland.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded the noble Earl that there was no Amendment before the House.
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH, to put himself in order, formally moved the following subsection:—
    "Provided, however, that, in the case of any holding comprised in an estate upon which the usage known as hanging gale or gales prevails, such gale or gales of rent shall not for the purpose of this section be deemed to be rent in arrear and shall not be affected by anything contained in this section."
    The present effect of the clause would in the case of many estates—large estates—which had been most kindly managed, be that in order to protect themselves the landlords would have to take short proceedings against their tenants. The object of all Irish land legislation was to, wherever possible, recognise customs and not to put landlords and tenants in any prejudiced position because of prevailing customs.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the clause was not drafted with any idea of interfering with the customary arrangements between landlord and tenant peculiar to different estates, but he thought it quite possible that the noble Lord was right in believing that the clause would have a certain effect upon those estates where it had been usual to collect rent six months or 12 months in arrear. He had considered carefully whether it was possible to devise any means of meeting these cases, but he found it entirely impossible to do so without running counter to what he conceived to be the avowed intention of the clause. The intention of the clause was that, where a tenant owed a considerable number of years' rent, he should be allowed to tender two years' arrears in in so far as proceedings by ejectment payment, and that thereupon he should, for non-payment of rent were concerned, be discharged of all liability, except in respect of earlier arrears, which his landlord could recover from him, not by ejectment for non-payment of rent, but by the remedies of an ordinary creditor. If they had attempted in this clause so to arrange matters that the tenant on coming out of court, and after paying two years' arrears to his landlord, still had attached to him the liability for an arrear of twelve months under the head of what was commonly known as the hanging gale, they would, he conceived, have departed from the principle of the

    331
    clause. The noble Lord might be correct in saying that the effect of the change in the law might in some cases be to drive landlords to insist upon more punctual payment of the tenants' obligations. If that led to any hardship or ill-feeling no one would, he was sure, regret it more than the noble Lord or himself, but he had found it quite impossible to alter the clause in the direction the noble Earl suggested.
    LORD HARLECHthought the case might be met by inserting "three years" for "two years." That would include any hanging gale there might be. [A laugh.]
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    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 he 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.
    *THE MAEQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to insert the words:—
    "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,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words:—
    "a sale within the moaning of section one of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, but the provisions of the several sub-sections thereof other than Sub-section (6), shall not apply thereto."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2,—

    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, he entered into except those so stated. For the purpose of this section, "appeal" includes "rehearing."
    THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved to leave out the words, "for the purpose of this section 'appeal' includes 'rehearing.'" Under the clause as it stood the appellant was bound to state the grounds of appeal, and on the hearing of the appeal to confine himself to the grounds stated. This provision was calculated to increase costs by compelling the appellant to get his appeal stated by counsel. The effect of his Amendment would be to enable the appellant to bring up other points, particularly points of law.
    *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (LORD ASHBOURNE)said his noble Friend was labouring under an erroneous impression as to the effect of the clause. The word "appeal" by itself was too narrow, and it was desirable to deal with all forms of re-hearings and appeals to the Land Commission. His noble Friend seemed to be under the impression that additional cost would be incurred by the appellant being compelled to state the heads of his appeal. But that was done now, and there was no reason to anticipate any addition to the cost.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Clause 28,—

    AS TO GUARANTEE DEPOSIT.
    (1.) The Land Commission, on making an advance, may dispense with the whole or any 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 person 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 of 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.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (2) after "Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," to insert "or the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEalso moved to insert the same words "1891" in Sub-section (3.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 30,—

    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 case may be, shall be made discharged from superior interests as defined by this section or from any of them, and in every such case the land shall be 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 Land 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 manner 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 money 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 Act, 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 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
    334
    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 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 be 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.
    (8.) 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 LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "a Land Judge may, if he think fit, order that."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "from," ("from superior interests,") and to insert instead thereof the word "all."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the full and new Sub-section.
    "2. A vesting order shall be subject to such exceptions and reservations as are specified in the order, if they were contained in the agreement for purchase or subsequently agreed to by the vendor and purchaser and have been approved by the Land Commission, and the Land Commission are satisfied that the effect of such exceptions and reservations was explained to and understood by the purchaser, or the purchaser is represented by a solicitor other than the solicitor of the vendor."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (3) to leave out the words "a Land Judge is," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Court are."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (5) to leave out the words" Land Judge," and to insert instead thereof the word "Court."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to insert at the begining of Sub-section (6) the words "the expression."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (6) after the words "successors, and any," to insert the word "estate."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (8) to leave out the words "further requisition as to title than a purchaser would be entitled to make under," and to insert instead thereof the words "requisition as to title, the making of which by a purchaser would be prevented by."
    Amendment agreed to.
    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 ht 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 construed 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 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, save that the jurisdiction of the Court for the purposes of this Act shall be exorcised by the Land Commission.
    (4.) An agreement for purchase, a vesting order, or fiat, shall not operate to convert the interest of the purchaser into real estate.
    LORD INCHIQUINmoved to omit Sub-section (1). He thought it would be
    336
    better for all concerned that the landlord's solicitor, who was certain to be fully acquainted with all the circumstances of the holding, should continue to prepare the vesting order. If the duty of preparing it were thrown upon the Land Commission, they would have to summon the solicitor to the vendor in each case—which would increase the costs—and they would have to engage a large staff of additional clerks to do the work.
    *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid the provision which the noble Lord proposed to omit was inserted by the Government in order to facilitate and quicken, and it might be cheapen, the purchase operations of the Land Commission. It was found that the present arrangement, by which the solicitor to the vendor provided the vesting order, was sometimes the cause of delay, as the Land Commission had to wait until the solicitor brought in the vesting order. It had been found necessary that the preparation of the vesting order should be made more rapid; but the change proposed would not dispense the solicitors of the parties from the duty of seeing that the vesting order was in proper shape. He could not see that the proposal would lead to any increase of cost, and it would certainly lead to a substantial decrease of delay. As to the fiat, the Land Commission would only proceed by fiat when the vesting order was dispensed with; and as the whole proceedings were in the hands of competent lawyers, the fiat would never be substituted for the vesting order unless it was desirable.
    LORD INCHIQUINthought it would lead to much less trouble if the vesting order were left to the landlord's soliciter. But, of course, the noble and learned Lord's statement altered the case, and he should not press the Amendment.
    LORD MACNACHTENsuggested the addition of some words which would indicate that it was the duty of the Land Commission to prepare the vesting order with reasonable dispatch. There was nothing in the clause to put any time limit to the task.
    *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDthought the words suggested would be unnecessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 32,

    AS TO REDEMPTION OR APPORTIONMENT OF ANNUITIES, BENT-CHARGES, ETC., UNDER 50 AND 51 VIC, 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 15 and 16 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 bidding.
    (2.) Where any 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 15 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 16, the High Court may determine the parties by whom such agreement may be made or 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 contingent liability for any annuity, rent-charge, or rent, in like manner as they apply to the annuity, rent-charge, or rent itself, and where any contingent liability has no appreciable value, the money may be distributed without regard to such liability.
    Amendments made:—Words in Subsection (1) "paid into the High Court under this Act" struck out; words in Sub-section (1) "the High Court were the Land Commission, and the money paid into that Court" omitted, and words "the money" inserted instead thereof; word "High" struck out from Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3); word "contingent," occurring twice in Sub-section (4), struck out.—(Marquess of Lansdowne.)
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to insert the following new subsection:—
    "(5.) Where any liability for any annuity, rent-charge, or rent is apportioned and redeemed out of the purchase-money and a right of indemnity in respect of such liability exists, the person entitled to the purchase-money shall be entitled to the proportion of the annuity, rent-charge, or rent so redeemed, in like manner as if he had purchased the same, and the Court, after due notice to all persons interested, shall make provision as to the future payment of such
    338
    portion of the annuity, rent-charge, or rent so purchased, and as to the laud to be liable thereto, and such other provisions as appear to the Court necessary for carrying into effect this enactment."
    LORD MACNAGHTENasked whether this sub-section was necessary? It was very complicated, and had the curious effect of compelling the man who sold to buy an annuity. He was not at all sure that the Land Commission would have jurisdiction over the person with whom it was proposed to deal—not the landlord or the tenant, but some person who was indemnifying the land from the rent-charge.
    *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that the clause had been drawn by those specially competent to deal with the question. He was assured that the clause was necessary and workable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD INCHIQUINmoved, to leave out Clause 32, as he was informed that it was practically provided for by the new Clause 30.
    *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is not all provided for.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 33,—

    AS TO EASEMENTS, ETC., WHEN VESTING 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 easement or right, shall be an easement or right within the meaning of this section, and shall be appurtenant to or exercisable 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.
    (3.) This section shall extend to any sale on declaration of title 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.
    LORD INCHIQUINmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert the words,—
    "Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to any privilege enjoyed by permission of the landlord, or otherwise over lands in the occupation of such landlord."
    He said that it would be exceedingly obnoxious to the landlord if the words of the clause were extended over land which he had in his occupation after the tenancy had ceased.
    THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid that this was the clause on which her Majesty's Government obtained the solitary victory on Friday. He then moved an Amendment which was consequential to the striking out of Clause 8 and the substitution of another clause. The present Amendment provided that, if a landlord had sold a farm to one of his tenants, and that tenant had had the privilege of cutting bog, for instance, the landlord should be at liberty to reserve to himself his own bog, having no longer any connection with the tenant.
    *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that the Amendment was out of keeping with the structure of the clause. If a tenant had enjoyed rights or easements over a property owned by someone not his own landlord for a certain number of years, he would have a legal title to those easements. But, in consequence of the law of common ownership, the tenant would have no legal title if the property were that of his own landlord. This was felt to be a hardship. The Amendment of his noble Friend suggested that, although it might be reasonable to give these rights over the land of other tenants of the landlords, it would not be reasonable if the lands chanced to be in the occupation of the landlord himself. But his noble Friend would see that the rights, to be good and made legal, should be in use and operation for a great number of years, sufficiently long to have given a clear and absolute legal right in the event of these being not over the property of the same landlord, and that was thought to be safeguarded by the circumstance that it must be upon clear recognised use going back a great number of years. He did not think there would be any foundation for distinguishing lands that chanced to be in the occupation of the landlord from those in the occupation of
    340
    his tenants. This was a reciprocal clause. From its construction it would be seen that if the tenant had over his own farm certain rights in the habit of being used by other people, they were preserved against him, and this was to be borne in mind.
    LORD MACNAGHTENsaid this was not confined to easements but rights. What rights were in contemplation of the authors of the Act? What was the meaning of "shall be appurtenant to or shall be exercisable over the holding"?
    *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid the words were intended to deal with the double aspect of the matter. If the tenant was in the habit of using them he was to retain them, but if other people were in the habit of exercising rights over his land they were to retain those rights.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF ARRANmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the words "purchaser shall," to insert the words "in the event of the sale being carried out." He said that in the Act of 1888 this provision existed, and the vendor was discharged from all liability in respect of rent and arrears from the date of the conveyance being sanctioned. He submitted that it was necessary that the words of the Amendment should be inserted.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am assured that this is unnecessary, and the point the noble Earl is anxious to safeguard is covered by the words, a few lines further down, "if the advance is refused the agreement shall be void."
    THE EARL OF ARRAN: That is not the point. When the sale has been sanctioned the tenant may refuse to carry out his agreement.
    Amendment agreed to.
    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 he sold without the

    341
    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 he inspected, and a report to he 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 be 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.

    (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
    342
    Judge made under this section may apply to the Court of Appeal to re-bear 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 be, 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.
    LORD INCHIQUINmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "either" ("either a receiver"); and, further, to leave out the word "or" ("over the estate or"), and to insert instead thereof the word "and." The noble Lord said the object of the Amendment was to confine the Order for the sales mentioned in the clause to oases in which the estate was insolvent. There were many estates which were perfectly solvent, and if the clause remained as it was the Order must stand to have them sold. By making the alterations he suggested, the Court would be prevented from considering itself justified in selling up an estate which might in itself be perfectly solvent, because the clause provided that on every estate where a receiver had been appointed the Court must sell. Receivers were appointed in many cases where the mortgage interest was in arrear, or the case might be in lunacy.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid there was no ground for the apprehension expressed by the Mover of the

    343
    Amendment. The whole section was covered by the words in the first line, "where an absolute Order for the sale of the estate has been made." In the case of an estate owned by a minor or lunatic that condition would not be fulfilled, and, moreover, he understood that in the case of a minor it would be in the custody of the Lord Chancellor, who would take care no improper sale of the estate took place. No doubt it was extremely difficult to distinguish between an estate which could be described as a solvent, and one which could be described as an insolvent estate. The fact of the estate being in the charge of a receiver was one of the most satisfactory tests upon which they could depend, although it was not the only test. It was not desirable to make the alteration suggested.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF BELMOREmoved, in paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "shall," ("shall make to the person") and to insert instead thereof the words "may if he think fit." He said the effect of this would be to give the Land Judge discretion whether he would make over the estate to the tenant.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the alteration would change the drift of the clause. As he understood, the Judge was vested with the fullest discretion with regard to the conditions upon which the sale might be allowed to proceed. But when once he was satisfied that the conditions were just and reasonable, it was intended that he should make an offer to the tenants. If the Amendment were adopted, the option given would be of an entirely different kind. He might be able to say that certain terms and conditions were fair and reasonable, and at the same time it might be open to him to deny to the tenants an opportunity of buying their farms.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, in paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "and" ("and the arrears of rent then due,") and to insert instead thereof the words "discharged from."
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD ENCHIQUENmoved the omission of paragraph (d). He remarked that Irish landlords felt strongly that if the clause stood as it did it would be the first move towards compulsory purchase, because it provided that where sale was to be carried out it could be done compulsorily if three-fourths of the tenants agreed. His proposal was to leave that provision out, because they had a strong feeling that if the thin end of the wedge of compulsion was allowed to come in in this Act it would be used against them, and practically before long compulsory sale might be the result.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Government regarded this as a very important provision, and he thought the noble Lord's fear that it might contain what he called the "thin edge of the wedge of compulsion" was without sufficient foundation. The compulsion the noble Lord was apprehensive of was compulsion directed against the landlords, and used to compel them to part with their estates. The compulsion which this clause contemplated was a certain amount of compulsion, not on the landlords, but on a minority of the tenants in the interests of the majority. There might be a proposal for the sale of an estate upon equitable terms, approved by the Land Commission and the Land Judge, and greatly desired by the main body of the tenants. In a case of that kind would it be desirable that the whole transaction should be brought to an end because a minority of the tenants hung back and were averse to acquiring their farms? The adoption of the proposal would go very far towards jeopardising the success of the clause.
    *THE EARL OF ERNEsaid that on Friday night he moved the rejection of the clause, and stated fully his objection to the principle of compulsion, the germs of which appeared to lie in the sub-section, but it appeared to be thought that what he regarded as a dangerous experiment should be carried out. As he did not see how it could be, successfully, without this sub-section, he appealed to his noble Friend whether it was worth while to press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 46,—

    APPLICATION TO LAND COMMISSION FOR RE-INSTATEMENT OF TENANT OR 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 re-instatement, the Land Commission may declare the terms and conditions as to rent, and the payment of arrears or otherwise upon which they consider that 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 condition (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.
    (4.) Upon such application, whether for reinstatement or for a sale being made by either the landlord or 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 upon 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 that 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 MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved in Sub-section (7), after the words
    346
    "shall include the," to insert the words "heir or"; and after the word "representative," to insert the words "as the case may be."
    Amendments agreed to.
    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.
    *THIS MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to leave out the word "herein," and to insert instead thereof the words "in this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 49,—

    APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARTS OF ACT.
    (1.) Part One of this Act shall, save as is by this Art expressly provided, apply to every proceeding pending at the commencement of this Act.
    (2.) The provisions of this Act with respect to a vesting order shrill 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.
    (3.) 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 be 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.
    (4.) 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.
    (5.) Parts Two, Three, and Five of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Pur-

    347
    chase Acts as herein defined, and, together with these Acts, may be cited as the Land Purchase Acts.
    (6.) Part Four of this Act shall he 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 he cited collectively as the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to leave out Sub-section (2).
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to omit from Sub-section (3) the words—
    "such application can he so sustained, the holding shall he deemed to he and to have remained a present tenancy as from the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,"
    and to insert instead thereof
    "a tenant would, if this Act had been in force at the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, he now a present tenant, and either the landlord has not, since the mid decision, resumed possession of the holding, or if he resumed the tenant has redeemed, the tenant shall be deemed a present tenant for the purpose of any such application."
    Amendment agreed to.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved after Sub-section (5), to insert the following new sub-section.
    (6.) "The provisions of Part III. of this Act with respect to superior interests and a vesting order shall not, without the consent of the vendor and purchaser, apply to proceedings in respect of any agreement made before the commencement of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 51,—

    REPEAL OF ACTS.
    The Acts specified in the First Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that schedule.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved to leave out the word "First" and to insert instead thereof the word "Second."
    *VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNmoved to insert the following new clause after Clause 51:—
    (52.) "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."
    348
    He said that the other night he laid down the principle that where a man's property was taken from him, he was entitled to an account, and he would go a step further and say, that when a man appealed, he was entitled to appeal to an independent person on the subject as to which he was aggrieved. On a recent occasion he pointed out that at this moment the Court Valuers attached to chief Commission were chosen from among the Sub-Commissioners, and as a consequence the Sub-Commissioners practically reviewed their own decisions, because one would be a Court Valuer for three months, and would then return to be a Sub-Commissioner. He also pointed out, that whilst A and B were practically revising and reviewing each others rents, it might not be impossible that there should be some sort of a fellow feeling in the matter, and that, without intending any harm, there should be a good deal of forbearance exercised towards each other's valuation. He based his claim for the insertion of the new clause, on the ground that it was equally fair and important to landlords and tenants. It was not a question whether they were going to be fair to landlord or tenant, but what was asked by the clause was, that they should be equally fair to both. If there was anything wrong in the clause, it would apply to both. A great reason in favour of this clause was that at present when a case came on for re-hearing neither party could cross-examine the Court Valuers. He pointed out that after the passing of the Act of 1881 a certain number of Court Valuers were appointed to be used solely for appeal purposes, and what was asked for was a reversion to that old method. At present the system was this:—A acted as a Sub-Commissioner in Antrim and might act as Court Valuer, say, in Armagh. B acted as a Court Valuer in Antrim and might act as Sub-Commissioner in Armagh. A was called to revise B's decision in the one case, and B to revise A's in the other case; the consequence might be a tacit understanding between them, such as was vulgarly expressed by the phrase, "Scratch me, and I'll scratch you." The result was that the Court Valuer's valuation, which the Court regarded as final, almost invariably coincided with the Sub-Commissioner's, and the appeal

    349
    was no appeal at all. He contended it was a great grievance in Ireland that the Court Valuers, upon whom so much depended, were not entirely independent people. He begged to move the clause.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEthought the noble Lord must have made his observations more with a desire to attract attention to this subject than with any hope that the Government should introduce at this stage a clause dealing with this branch of the subject. He realised the importance of having in the position of Court Valuers men of experience, and, above all things, thoroughly independent and trustworthy. As far as he could make out, the complaint of the noble Lord was that occasionally a Sub-Commissioner acted as a Court Valuer, or a Court Valuer acted as a Sub-Commissioner. He must say on the face of that he saw nothing that would lead one to suppose that such an employment of these officials constituted, in any sense, an abuse. He was told that if the Land Commission desired to send down a Court Valuer they very often sent down one of the Sub-Commissioners to value. He would ask the noble Lord whether it was not the case that a lay Sub-Commissioner and a Court Valuer were not persons in whom one would expect to find the same sort of qualifications? He should imagine the man who was thoroughly competent for the one purpose would be also thoroughly competent for the other. It was suggested by his noble Friend that there had been cases when these officials had been employed under circumstances which led to the idea that there was something like an understanding between them as to the standard at which they should value the lands. Of course, if any case of that kind could be pointed out, he had no doubt the matter would receive the attention of the Land Commission, but as to the general practice of employing these gentlemen either as Court Valuers or as Sub-Commissioners he could, he confessed, see nothing which was to his mind suggestive of a grave abuse. He was afraid he could not encourage the noble Lord to expect that they would incorporate his recommendation in the Bill.
    THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid it was not so much a matter of grave abuse. It was a matter of whether it was
    350
    expedient that this sort of practice should be carried on of employing a gentleman one month as a Sub-Commissioner and perhaps six months hence as a Court Valuer. He thought there was a certain amount of a case for what the noble Viscount asked, and he hoped the Government would not, at any rate, refuse the Amendment without giving it a little more consideration and advancing some stronger arguments than he had yet heard.
    THE EARL OF MAYOsaid the noble Marquess held out no hopes that this system would be amended or improved in any way. All they asked for was that Sub-Commissioners and land valuers should not be interchangeable. This appeared to be a reasonable demand, and if they had some sympathy from the noble Marquess they would feel much happier, and they would feel that the re-valuations would be more justly and more properly carried out.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid his noble Friend in charge of the Bill had shown, in the way he spoke, the greatest sympathy with the very important subject that the valuations for the head Court should be made by capable and upright men. But while recognising the great importance of these topics, it would be impossible to give an undertaking that the highly-paid men who were Land Commissioners should not be employed suitably and in suitable districts, and when they were available, to make valuations which might give the most valuable information to the head Commission.
    *VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNsaid that, in withdrawing this clause, he would only point out, in reply to the noble Marquess, there was one very important qualification which the Sub-Commissioners and valuators had not in common. There was no independence in the valuator. The valuator was practically the final Court of Appeal against whom they appealed, and he was not an independent part of the body who fixed fair rents. It was one huge firm settling rents all over the country, and they were simply appealing from one member of the firm to another. The valuator ought to be entirely distinct from that firm.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Schedules were agreed to in the following amended from:—

SCHEDULES.

  FIRST SCHEDULES.—FROM OF SCHEDULE FOR RECORD.
  Particulars of Holding taken into consideration in fixing the Judicial Rent.

  No. of Ordnance Sheet.

  County

  Tenant

  Record No.

  Landlord

  Date upon which holding inspected

  day of

  189

  Who attended inspection on behalf of Landlord?

  Do, on behalf of Tenant?

  1. Character of holding:—
  The land in a holding may be all of uniform character, or it may consist of two or more of the qualities of land indicated in the following Schedule, which should be car, fully filled up according to the facts. The acreage of each class of land found in the holding should be sot out in the column given for the purpose, and this area should be marked off with a blue coloured line on the Ordnance Survey Map of the holding, and also marked with the letter or letters corresponding with same in the Schedule. Those areas should be stated with as near an approach to accuracy as under the circumstances is possible. The record number of the holding should in each case be marked on the Map, and where more than one holding is marked on the Map a Schedule of holdings with the record numbers and tenants' names is to he written on the right hand margin on the Map. The exterior boundaries of each holding must be carefully marked on the Map with a red coloured line.

  (1.) SCHEDULE of classes of land.

  —

  Area in Statute Measure.

  Fair Rent per Acre (excluding Buildings), on the assumption that all Improvements thereon were made or acquired by the Landlord.

  GRASS LANDS.

  A.

  R.

  R.

  £

  s.

  d.

  A. 1st class

  B. 2nd class

  C. 3rd class

  D. 4th class

  E. 5th class, mountain and unre claimed bog

  F. 1st class, permanent meadow

  G. 2nd class, permanent meadow

  LAND IN TILLAGE OU WORKED IN ROTATION, INCLUDING PASTURE OR MEADOW OF A TEMPORARY CHARACTER.

  H. 1st class

  I. 2nd class

  K. 3rd class

  L. 4th class, reclaimed mountain or bog

  X. Waste (description)

  Total area

  2. For what description of stock is the grass land best suited?
  3. Carrying power in sums or collops of grass land, stating the months during which the season usually continues, and how hay is provided?
  4. How is the holding used?
  5. The condition as to cultivation, deterioration or otherwise of the holding and the buildings thereon. Does the soil show traces of improvement or of deterioration, and to whom is the improvement or deterioration to be attributed?
  6. Does the holding or any part of it require to be drained, and if so, how much of the holding? Mark part requiring drainage on map by thin parallel black lines.
  7. IMPROVEMENTS: Proved in Court (excluding buildings) whether made by landlord or tenant, which are at present a bonâ fide benefit and suitable to the holding and are found to exist on inspection, to be stated in detail, together with the nature, character, and present capital value thereof, and the increased letting value due thereto, and the date, so near as can be ascertained, at which the same were made, and the deduction from rent made.
  8. BUILDINGS: If tenants state so, if landlords specify particulars of same, the date, so near as can be ascertained, at which they were made, state fair annual value, whether they have been kept in repair, and by whom, and any deduction from rent made on account thereof, and the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect thereof made on account thereof.
  Improvements under this head shall be distinguished according as—

  (a) they have been made wholly or partly by or at the cost of the tenant; and

  (b) the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect thereof.

  9. SITUATION: As to markets, railways, and county roads.
  10. What per centage (if any) has been added for proximity, or what (if any) has been deducted in consequence of remote position?
  11. (live particulars of any right of turbary, commonage, mountain grazing, or seaweed—and state whether turbary is inside or outside holding, what amount has been added for any of those appurtenances.
  12. LOCAL RATES—
  Average poor rate in £1.
  Average county cess in £1.
  13. Special incidents of holding, such as aspect, elevation, and water supply, and general observations.

  To be signed by Lay Assistant-Commissioners

  day of

  189

  14. The following improvements included in enumeration in paragraph No. 7 were made or acquired by the tenant or his predecessors in title, and are exempted from rent.
  15. For what rights (if any) referred to in answers to query No. 11 has an addition been made to the rent?
  16. Upon what assumption with regard to the respective liabilities of landlord and tenant as to rates and taxes mentioned in answers to query No. 12, has the judicial rent been fixed?
  To be signed by Legal and Lay Assistant-Commissioners.
  17. The annual sum which should be the fair rent of the holding on the assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord.
  18. The fair rent of the holding.
  19. If tenancy has been purchased since the Land Act, 1870, give date and amount of purchase-money on each sale.
  20. What changes of rent have been proved in evidence?
  To be signed by Legal Assistant Commissioner alone.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—ACTS REPEALED.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  44 & 45 Vict, c. 49.

  Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.

  In section eight, sub-section two, from "as from the period "down to" decision of the court," and subsection three, from "from the rent day" down to "has been given."

  Section twenty-four, from "as follows" to "fair rent for the holding," being the end of sub-section one.

  In section twenty-six from "the Land Commission may advance "down to "payable by the tenant," being sub-section four.

  Section twenty-eight, from the beginning down to "purchaser therein mentioned," being sub-sections one and two.

  In section thirty, sub-section three, from "on the terms" down to "1870," where that figure next occurs, and from "and shall pay" down to "receive the same."

  Section thirty-three.

  In section fifty-eight, sub-section one, sub-section two, down to "home farm or" and sub-sections three and four.

  48 & 49 Vict. c. 73.

  Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885.

  In section two, from "it shall not be lawful" to the end of the section, being paragraph (c).

  In section four, the words "such value to be calculated according to the table in the Schedule to this Act."

  Section nine, sub-sections one and two.

  In section fourteen, from "the Land Commission shall register" down to "local registration."

  In section seventeen, from "the additional members of the Land Commission" down to "with the said additional Commissioners."

  Section twenty-four.

  50 & 51 Vict. c. 33.

  Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887.

  Section one, down to "passing of this Act."

  In section four, from "a tenant may also" to "and otherwise."

  Section five.

  Section seventeen.

  In section eighteen, from "section thirty-four" to the end of the section, being sub-section two.

  51 & 52 Vict, c. 49.

  Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888.

  Section one, down to "said sub-section and."

  Section three, save as regards agreements for purchase made before the passing of this Act.

  Section six.

  54 & 55 Vict. c. 48.

  The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891.

  In section four, sub-section two, from "in paying to the guarantee fund," to the end of the sub-section, being paragraph (b).

  Section seven, from "and an annual sum" to end of section.

  Section eight, as respects any purchaser's insurance money paid before the commencement of this Act.

  In section twenty-nine, sub-section one, from "provided that" to "Act, 1881" where those words next first occur; and sub-section two.

  In section forty-two, from "the expression annual value" to "so determined."

  Standing Order No. XXXIX. having, on the motion of the MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, been suspended,
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEformally moved "That the Bill be read the Third time."
  EARL SPENCERsaid he desired to say a few words at this stage. This Bill dealt with a very important matter, and was brought forward a long time ago. As the Duke of Devonshire had said, it was intended to carry out certain pledges made by Members of Her Majesty's Government. It was in one sense a compromise, because it stood between those who were most advanced in the cause of the tenants, and those who wished to leave the law as it stood, but it had been accepted in the other House by the Irish representatives, not as a complete measure, but as one containing many clauses which opened the Land Courts to the Irish tenants. Since it had been in their Lordships' House some very important Amendments had been made in it. He saw in that morning's papers a document signed by certain leading Irish landlords—it might be said to be a manifesto—and learned that those noble Lords who had been instrumental in carrying Amendments had not intended to wreck the Bill and had not done so. [Cheers.] What was the meaning of wrecking a Bill? If they meant that they had not driven a torpedo into the vessel and scuttled it they might be right. But if they had introduced Measures which would stop the machinery of the ship or had covered the deck with a large amount of wreckage from the fire of the artillery, then, he said, they had waterlogged it if they had not altogether wrecked it. [Cries of "No!"] This was particularly the case with regard to the Tenure Clauses, which formed almost the most important part of the Bill in the eyes of the Irish occupiers. The Bill had been amended in the four important matters relating to turbary, the money limit on the Pasture Clauses, the town parks, and the restrictions on the Courts from taking into consideration the occupation right of the sitting tenant. Those four changes, he conceived, were very deadly in their effect on the operation of the tenure principle. He did not speak in any way on the part of the Irish representatives
  358
  or on the part of the Irish tenants, but he could not conceive that those who represented the tenants in another place would be able to accept the Amendments, in consequence not only of what they had said in another place, but of their pledges to their constituents. He thought that was a very grave matter. It was a grave matter to offer to a country, or to a large body of people in it, a Measure which they repudiated, disliked, and in no way accepted. From the point of view of those who were against giving self-government to Ireland, that seemed to him to be a very dangerous proceeding, and one entirely opposed to sound policy. It might be that many of those who wished, like himself, that a more extensive system of self-government should be given to Ireland might find a solid argument in the proceedings in their Lordships' House; but though he firmly adhered to all the views he ever held on that subject, he did not share that opinion with regard to this Bill. He desired that the benefit of the fresh legislation should be extended as soon as possible to the Irish people, and he therefore regretted that those great changes had been introduced. One very remarkable thing was to be noted in regard to this Debate. He regretted that the Prime Minister was not then present, because he must refer to him in connection with a point of considerable importance. It seemed to him a very strange and remarkable thing that when one of the principal Measures, if not the largest Measure, of the Session, was proposed in Parliament by Her Majesty's Government, the Prime Minister of the country, who had such enormous influence in directing its policy, had not said a word on the subject. The Secretary of State for War, in introducing the Measure, compared himself to a tame elephant endeavouring to allure the Irish landlords into the in-closure. He was afraid that, notwithstanding the great moderation, ability, and skill which the noble Marquess had shown in conducting the Measure, he had not succeeded in capturing them. There were others besides the Irish landlords who had to be convinced on this subject. There were some, no doubt, even in the Cabinet, and above all there was the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, for if they called to mind speeches of his they would remember that he had—

  359
  in the strong language he was capable of using—denounced in former days land legislation after the Bills of 1870 and 1881. It would have been instructive to have heard the reasons that had induced the noble Marquess to support this Measure. It would have been very useful to all of them, and especially so to that large number of English supporters of the noble Marquess who had on this occasion remained absent from the House, and had refused to follow the standard he had raised. He did not know whether the Prime Minister could have persuaded the Irish landlords, but he felt sure that if he had given the arguments that had induced him—at one time the stern and strong opponent of this legislation—to adopt this Measure, it would have done much to induce his supporters to follow him. He was aware that this was not the last occasion when the Bill would come before them. He did not know what Her Majesty's Government would do when the Amendments went down to the House of Commons, but he sincerely hoped and trusted that they would, as far as possible, maintain all the great principles involved in the Measure, and that, when the Bill came back, after the Commons' remarks on their Lordships' Amendments, they would show a firm front and try to carry it in its original shape. He should deeply regret if this were not done. He felt that if their Lordships adhered to their Amendments, they would place themselves in a very false position. Ought it to be said that their Lordships' House, which was a House of landlords, dealt in a matter of this sort entirely in the interests of the landlords, and in that way had refused to meet what was considered to be a grievance of the Irish tenants and submitted for their approval by a Conservative Government? If they adhered to that course they would be incurring what, no doubt, would be a serious danger, not only to Ireland, but to the independence and strength of their Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he could not allow the Third Reading of the Bill to pass without saying a few words on behalf of himself and those with whom he had worked in the course of the passage of this Measure. The noble Earl who had just sat down had alluded to a letter which he had read in
  360
  that morning's papers signed by himself and other Irish landlords. The noble Earl said that in that letter they disclaimed any idea of wrecking the Bill. He indorsed that statement most heartily—["Hear, hear!"]—on behalf of himself and those with whom he was working. They had always said they would have welcomed a Bill which was calculated to be of benefit to Ireland, and which would have acted justly to all classes of the community. So far from wrecking the Bill, they flattered themselves they had gone far to remedy the gross imperfections with which on many points it bristled when it came up to their Lordships' House. If there was one person who had gone a long way towards losing the Bill it was the noble Earl, for were the advice he had given to his friends in the House of Commons—the Nationalist Members—followed, the Bill would be wrecked. He trusted that advice would not be followed, but that the Members of the House of Commons would note and appreciate the fact that the Bill was sent back to them in a shape in which it would at least give satisfaction to a certain section of the community, and that was the vast majority of their Lordships' House, and it certainly did not give satisfaction to anyone when it entered the portals of this House. He had hoped Her Majesty's Government would have met some of the proposals he and his Friends made more cordially than they did. It would, for instance have been gracious on the part of the Government to have acceded to their request in regard to Clause 1, and not have forced them to go to a Division. The House of Commons virtually accepted the principle that the Sub-Commissioners should specify their reasons for granting the enormous reductions of rent, but the details were never entered into, because the Bill was hurried through the House of Commons in a most unjustifiable manner. When it came up to their Lordships it was in a crude condition, and absolutely devoid of those safeguards which not only their Lordships, but the House of Commons and the country, had a right to expect and demand. He therefore maintained that the Division on Clause 1 must be adhered to. Upon that clause the Government simply did what it was their

  361
  duty to do, and he and his Friends declined to accept the alteration made as any concession whatever to the landowners. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government themselves, recognising the dangerous and mischievous character of Clause 8, which dealt with turbary, withdrew the clause, and substituted for it a clause of a less mischievous and less hurtful character. As to Clause 30, too, the Government made no concession to the landowners of Ireland. In the Debate on the Second Reading he told the Government that though the Purchase Clauses of the Bill were intended to be attractive, they would absolutely kill purchase if they were allowed to stand unamended. The omission of the clause, therefore, was no concession to him and his friends, but it was a real benefit to the country, and to those tenants whom the Government proposed to benefit. Clause 39 was one of great importance; he believed the Government regarded it as the most important one in the Bill. What did he and his Friends do in respect of that clause? They made a concession to the Government; they were conciliatory. They, however, knew full well that there was an enormous number of people who looked with the gravest apprehension, he might say the greatest terror, at the manner in which they anticipated the Bill would work. They conceded to the Government a principle of which they greatly disapproved. They permitted the Government to carry a clause which embraced the principle of compulsory sale or purchase. Never before had that principle been advanced in their Lordships' House. He maintained that, so far, the concessions had been all on their side. He would like the noble Marquess to tell them what concessions he considered he had made to them. Then he came to the clause proposing to raise the rateable value from £50 to £100. They divided against that clause because they believed that it was contrary to the principles of the Act of 1881. They did not know why the Government of the present day should seek to infringe the Act of 1881 by admitting to the benefit of the Fair Rent Courts a certain class of the community whom Mr. Gladstone went out of his way to exclude. The noble Earl said he had always wished the tenants to take advantage of the Fair Rent
  362
  Courts. Why, then, did he not insist upon such a clause being inserted in the Act of 1881? Mr. Gladstone gave his reasons for not admitting those over £50, and Mr. Parnell declared it was unnecessary to admit them. All he and those who acted with him asked was that the matter should remain as it was under the Act of 1881. The noble Earl alluded to the question of town parks. They divided on that question because they were assured by Lord Macnaghten that were the clause to be carried as it stood, town parks would be abolished. Their action throughout had been reasonable and conciliatory. To-day they had not-divided upon a single Amendment, but had done their utmost, he would not say to perfect the Measure, because it was not a perfect Measure, but to remedy the defects with which the Bill came to their Lordships' House. He trusted that their Lordships, having taken up a line upon certain points of the Bill, which they considered of vital importance, would not be induced to give way on those points. [Cheers.] It might be said—it had been said by the noble Earl—they were trying to wreck the Bill. They were not crying to wreck the Bill. They desired to see it accepted in another place, but if alterations were made in another place which their Lordships considered to be unjust to any section of the community in Ireland, or which would render unworkable those parts of the Bill which they thought they had made workable, then he could only trust their Lordships would adhere to the action they had taken during the past week. ["Hear, hear!"] He sincerely trusted to see the Measure placed on the Statute-book, but if the Bill was not carried into law it would not be the fault of those who had the real benefit and happiness of Ireland at heart. [Cheers.]
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid he rose principally to express his very deep regret that his noble Friend had made perhaps a premature, and, at any rate, a very strong appeal to the House to adhere to the Amendments which they had moved, whatever might be their fate in another place. The noble Marquess said that he did not wish to wreck the Bill, but he and his noble Friends had shown themselves so powerful in the House that, full of their exuberant vigour, like young lions at play, they

  363
  were more destructive than they understood. He felt very sure that if some of the Amendments made by their Lordships were disagreed with in another place, and were insisted on by the House of Lords, they would succeed in wrecking the Bill. It was a source of great regret to him that except on one solitary occasion he had been unable to vote in the same Lobby with the noble Lords who were landowners in Ireland. He voted with them on the first Amendment, because it seemed impossible to vote against it. But as to some of the Amendments—especially that lowering the letting value from £100 to ££50—it was beyond his comprehension how any Irish landlord could think them desirable either for the country or for any individual landlord. The noble Marquess said that what he objected to was that the Government were departing from the principles of the Act of 1881. The noble Marquess seemed to forget that he was not living in 1881 now, and he paid no attention whatever to the imperfections which the last 15 years had shown to exist in the Act of 1881. He himself did not approve of anything in the Act of 1881; but it was the duty of any sensible man to accept the legislation of 15 years ago; and, if it were found not to work smoothly in some respects, to remove the defects. He could not conceive how anyone could suppose that it could be an advantage to Ireland, or anything but a disadvantage to the landowners in Ireland, that there should be a small class of tenants excluded from the Bill to which all their friends and neighbours were admitted. Everyone of such excluded tenants must be a centre of discontent. He had never been able to see what the harm was in this Bill as it came to the House, except in some very few details. Noble Lords had failed to point out anything which would have caused any serious damage to Irish landowners. Certainly there was nothing to do half the damage to landowners which would be done if this Bill did not become law. Much of the Bill would be of great advantage to the landowners, because peace, quiet and contentment in Ireland was as beneficial to them as to any other class. He sincerely hoped that his noble Friends would very seriously consider their position should the Bill come back to the
  364
  House in a materially different shape. If they persisted in these Amendments, they would do great damage to the power and reputation of the House of Lords. That House had a great reserve of force and power, which could be used with good effect—as it was used recently—for saving the State. But that reserve ought not lightly to be frittered away. It would not add to the strength or reputation of the House or to the affection with which it was regarded by the country if this Bill were lost because a number of noble Lords, all interested in Irish land, had insisted on Amendments which could not be accepted by those representing the tenants in the House of Commons. If the Bill were wrecked great injury would be done to the small owners in Ireland—the very class whom noble Lords desired to benefit. Two things were of great importance in Irish land legislation—to facilitate purchase, to return through purchase to a sound system of land tenure as soon as possible; and to maintain a great number of the present landowning class in Ireland as possible. If this Bill did not pass, the consequences in Ireland would be anything but what could be wished.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid that Earl Spencer had referred to their Lordships as a House of landlords. No doubt most of them were landlords; but some of them were representative Peers of Ireland, and of those he was the senior Peer. He wished to say most emphatically that he and the other Irish Representative Peers did not consider themselves as merely representing themselves or the landlords of Ireland, but felt bound, to the best of their ability, to represent all the people of Ireland. Of course, many of the people differed from them in religion and politics, but there were many subjects common to all, on which they represented the people's opinions as well as their own. As to the new turbary clause which the Government had brought up, he did not think it mischievous in any way, and believed that it would be very useful. As to the Town Parks Clause, if he had thought that the intention of Her Majesty's Government would be carried out in the way in which the drafting of the clause indicated, he should have been quite willing to see it accepted. But the House was assured by the noble and

  365
  learned Lord who some years ago drafted the clause defining town parks, that if the clause in the Bill were accepted there would he no more town parks in Ireland. That would be a serious thing, not only for the owners, but for the towns; and the House was quite justified, failing a safe definition, in rejecting the clause. As to the £50 limit, all he would say was that if, for reasons of public policy, Parliament thought it right to transfer the property of one person, to whom it had been expressly reserved, to another person, compensation ought to be paid. If one of these £50 tenants had a road cut through his holding he would be ready enough to claim compensation. He had never desired to wreck the Bill, and he had never for one moment since the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons believed that it was in danger in either House. He hoped it would pass in the form most consistent with justice to both parties. It might be received with disappointment by some tenants who had expected more than they were ever likely to get, but he was sure that the reasonable men among them would see, when it came into operation, that they received substantial benefit from it.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
THE EARL OF RANFURLY,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it amended the law relating to public health in Ireland, and assimilated it to the law in England. It gave additional powers to the Local Government Board and enabled them to vest rural authorities with the powers of urban authorities. It also enabled sanitary authorities to combine for the purpose of executing work within their own districts. The Bill enabled urban authorities to divide a district into parts, to put a separate assessment on any part or parts, a proviso being inserted that such assessments should be fair and equitable, to levy a private improvement rate, a water rate, and to grant superannuation allowances for duties performed under the Public Health Act. The Local Government Board was also given power to constitute port sanitary authorities where
366
needed, and to assign them certain jurisdictions, powers, rights, and duties.
Bill read 2a, according to Order, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow; and Standing Order XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ESTATE DUTY BILL.
Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow.—(Lord Ranfurly.)—[No 246.]
House adjourned at Ten minutes before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Five o'clock.