Sitting of 2 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the" third time."
  MR. CAREW: After the very exhaustive discussion of this Bill last week, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House more than a few minutes to-day. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that the consideration of the Bill was carried at the close of the last debate by the narrow majority of thirteen. Since that date a special Committee,. presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Colne, which was appointed for the purpose of considering Bills promoted by electric syndicates in the north of England to supply electricity to different towns, have come to a decision which has a very important bearing on the question before the House at the present moment. They considered, that while granting power to these syndicates, it was their duty to safeguard the rights of local authorities by providing that, where a local authority shows its willingness to provide, on reasonable terms and within a reasonable time, a supply of electrical energy, it should not be subjected to the competition of a private company. That proviso represents what the Committee regard as proper in the case of English and Scotch communities. I wish to know why Irish communities should be treated in a different manner. At the present moment the Dublin Corporation has got over the financial difficulties which prevented it from giving to its citizens that supply of electricity which they desired. The strength of the opposition to this Bill lies in the fact that the corporation has not up to the present given satisfaction to the consumers. But it could not do so, because it had exhausted its borrowing powers upon a water scheme which has secured for Dublin the best water supply to be found in the United Kingdom. But last year it set its house in order. It has already spent £89,000 in establishing a generating system, and that proved a failure simply because the amount of money invested in it was too small. To meet that difficulty the Dublin Corporation have now obtained further borrowing powers, and it has arranged for an enlarged scheme by means of which, when it is in full working order, it will be able to give a supply of electricity which, it is

  223
  hoped, will afford as much satisfaction to the citizens of Dublin as does the water supply at the present moment. The promoters of this Bill allege that the Dublin Corporation has already had sufficient time to make its supply a success. The reason it has been a failure, however, has been the inadequacy of its capital. That difficulty has now been got over, and I therefore ask the House to apply to Dublin the principle which its special Committee has laid down in regard to English and Scotch schemes, and to reverse the decisions already given in favour of this Bill. If this Bill is passed you will have competing systems in Dublin, which must give rise to friction, as the corporation is the sole road authority. It alone has the right to pull up the streets; it has established a drainage and water system; it has laid cables underground, and by moans of the further borrowing powers it has obtained it will now be enabled to establish a full and complete system of electric supply. On the Second Heading of the Bill the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Antrim, whose name is on the back of it, argued in support of it that the new company would be enabled to supply the light on the same terms as those on which it was supplied by many other companies—namely, 4d. per unit. But that argument does not now lie in his mouth, because the result of one clause which has been introduced will be that it will have to establish a scheme under which the light cannot be produced at a cost of less than 6d. per unit. I think the House would be taking a very serious step in departing from the principle laid down by its special Committee for safeguarding the rights of municipal authorities, and I therefore ask it to reject this Bill.
  *MR. FIELD: I beg leave to second the motion. This is a Bill to incorporate a company under the name of the Dublin Electric Light Company, with a share capital of £500,000 and borrowing powers to the extent of £160,000, and it empowers such company to construct works, to break up the streets, and to supply electricity within the city of Dublin in competition with the corporation. I have no desire to detain the House unnecessarily with details because we have quite recently had a long debate on this subject. But I wish to point out that there is a great
  224
  principle underlying the opposition to this. Bill—a principle well worthy the attention of the House. It seems to me rather strange that in a House of 351 Members the motion for the consideration of the report stage of this Bill was only carried by a majority of thirteen. I venture to say that such a small majority is unprecedented, because the tendency of this House has always been to support, strongly the decisions of its Committees. It is admitted that this Bill is entirely without precedent, and I therefore contend that we are thoroughly justified in again asking this House to reconsider its decision. It has so far been carried against the wishes and opinion of the Members for Dublin, and I maintain that Dublin is entitled to the same treatment as would be accorded to an English or Scotch city. Although we were defeated by a small majority we now appeal to the House for equality of treatment, on a matter which is non-political, for the city which we represent, because such a measure could not be passed for any city in Great Britain. What has occurred since the last debate? A special Committee of this House, which has been sitting upstairs to deal with various Bills seeking electrical powers, has adopted a resolution in further confirmation of the principle that where a local authority shows its willingness to provide, on reasonable terms and within a reasonable time, a supply of electrical energy, it should not be competed with by private undertakers. If that principle is good, for England and Scotland, why should it not also be applied for Ireland?
  *MR. BROWN: The hon. Member has not read the whole of the resolution.
  *MR.. FIELD: No; I will leave that for the hon. Gentleman. I assert that if competition is not to be allowed by private individuals against municipal corporations in England and Scotland, the same principle should be applied to Ireland. In all English Electric Bills passed this session clauses have been inserted prohibiting the promoter supplying electricity in competition with the local authorities. Yet this Bill will allow such competition against the Dublin Corporation. This would establish through legislation a particular exception, as against

  225
  Dublin, which is not to be in any way protected against competition in the supply of electricity, although clauses are inserted for the protection of Rathmines, Rathgar, Pembroke, and Clontarf. How is that to be justified? Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Dublin Corporation were now for the first time promoting a Bill with regard to the electric lighting of Dublin. What would De the position of the promoters of the Bill we are now discussing? They would not have even a locus standi in this House. They would have no power to oppose the Corporation Bill. But here, because the corporation have already been exercising powers for the supply of electricity, they are now to be subjected to the competition of a private syndicate. Could anything be more extraordinary? I submit that there are broader grounds underlying the opposition to this Bill. There is a great question of public policy involved. It will be generally admitted that that public policy in respect to electric lighting has been clearly laid down by the special Committee on Electric Lighting Bills, and by the House itself in the various Electric Lighting Acts which it has passed. That policy has been in effect to constitute the local authority as the proper party to undertake the duty of lighting within its own district. That being so, I respectfully affirm that the question of determining such a point of public policy should not be dealt with by a Select Committee. It should be left to the House itself, and that is why we are asking this House to reject this Bill, I quite admit that we are taking an unusual course, but then there are exceptional circumstances in this case, and I would suggest that no reflection whatever will be case upon the Committee if its decision is reversed and the Bill now thrown out. This is the wrong time to pass such a Bill. The Corporation have obtained further borrowing powers which will enable them to carry into effect the plans of an eminent engineer for the proper supply of electric light. I also object in the strongest possible manner to public utilities being handed over to private companies, and I believe the House will vindicate the principle which has been laid down, that public utilities should be left in the hands of the ratepayers generally. Therefore, I am not in favour of the gas monopoly in Dublin, being as strongly opposed to it as
  226
  are the promoters of this Bill, and I entirely object to permit a further extension of allowing a private syndicate to take over a source of revenue which should be devoted to the reduction of taxation. In English and Scotch cities taxation is being reduced because the municipal authorities have the ownership of the electric light, and it is obviously unfair to the city and citizens of Dublin, who are already so heavily burdened with taxation, that exceptional treatment should be accorded to that city, and that the revenue derivable from public utilities should find its way into shareholders' pockets, instead of going towards the reduction of the rates. In conclusion, I will read a summary of the objections of the corporation to this Bill. They are as follows:—

  "1. There is no precedent for such a Bill. Such powers would never be granted in any English or Scotch town, against the local authority.

  "2. The Corporation have been providing a partial supply, and within a very short time will have a supply of electricity for the entire city.

  "3. All the streets of Dublin are already occupied by sewers, water mains, gas mains, and many streets by the underground feeder cables of the electrical tramways, by underground wires of the National Telephone Company, and postal telegraph wires, and the present Corporation electric light mains. When the Corporation system shall have been completed the opening of the streets by another lighting company would create an intolerable situation.

  "4. Capital invested by a local authority under the provisions of an Act of Parliament should be able to claim from Parliament that protection which Parliament always affords to capital invested by statutory companies.

  "5. The passing of this 15ill would be in derogation of the powers for self-government so recently conferred on Irish municipalities, and the execution of the works there under would cause serious inconvenience and injury to the ratepayers of Dublin.

  "6. It is idle to contend that this Bill is promoted in the interests of the citizens of Dublin. The Corporation are the representatives of the citizens, and the election of its members is entirely within the control of the citizens."

  For those irresistible reasons I beg to second the rejection of this Bill, and I trust the House will throw it out by a substantial majority.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the: end of the Question to add the words 'upon i this day three months.' "—(Mr. Carew.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.
  *MR. BROWNsaid that, speaking on behalf of the Committee which passed the preamble of the Bill, be had to ask the House to support the decision to which it came after a very considerable amount of labour. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill had referred to the resolution passed by the special Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Colne. But he did not quote the full terms, which set forth that the local authority must be prepared to give a full and adequate supply of electric energy for all purposes, and that, in the event of disputes arising, the question should be submitted to the Board of Trade. The course pursued by the opponents of this Bill in thus renewing their opposition at successive stages and after the Bill had been carefully considered upstairs was most unusual. The Committee, after full inquiry, came to the conclusion that the Dublin Corporation had practically done nothing to carry out the powers it possessed in relation to electrical energy, and therefore an alternative company should be formed and authorised to give the city and some of the out-townships a supply of electric light. A great deal had been said about the difficulties with which the corporation had had to contend, but there was nothing in the evidence to lead him to believe that, if they had been in earnest, the could not have overcome such difficulties. He did not believe that any English corporation would have acted in a like manner. If the Committee had thrown the Bill out they would have given the Corporation of Dublin a monopoly which was not enjoyed by many corporations in England. The policy of Parliament, too, was against the creation of monopolies. As to the question of the roads, he might point out that if the Dublin streets had to be broken up for the service of the private company the corporation could do the work at the cost of the company, so that no conflict of authority would arise. They need not, therefore, fear any difficulty in that respect. Then again, it had been suggested that after a given period of years the corporation would have to buy up the system of the competing company. But that was optional and not compulsory,
  228
  and if the corporation was giving a good supply he saw no reason whatever why it. should have to buy out the company. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would confirm the decision of the Committee:
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I think we have every cause to complain of the pertinacity with which this Bill has been assailed at every step and stage in its career. We had a division on the. Second Reading, and those who, like myself, knew the merits of the case were- not surprised to find that the Corporation. of Dublin, backed and aided by the Freeman's Journal, did their best to- burke all inquiry and to stifle all discussion with regard to the merits of the measure, and to prevent the Bill going before the Committee. On that occasion the House was satisfied that the Bill had. sufficient merits to entitle it to go upstairs, and by a majority of twenty votes it was so decided.. The Freeman's Journal and the corporation, however, watched the progress of the measure, and nothing could equal the disgust expressed by them when the Committee, after full consideration, found it was their duty to accept the Bill. It may interest the House to see the attitude taken up by this combination of the Freeman's Journal and the corporation. The hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire voted against sending the Bill upstairs, and it would seem to me that as he was to sit on an impartial Committee it would have been better if he had not voted on any issue in the House. In any event, he then voted against the corporation, and the Freeman's Journal attacked him, as follows—
  "Mr. Trevelyan is supposed to be a Radical, but in this instance he appears to have developed a hostility worthy of Sir Henry Fowler to the Liberal principle of the municipalisation of monopolies. It is not a good beginning to a Liberal career."
  That is the way the Freeman's Journal criticises the free action of Members of this House. It is part and parcel of the system of tyranny which is never lost sight of when that organ wishes to destroy anything in which the Unionists are interested, and in which the real well being of the community is concerned. I protest against criticism like that being levelled against a member of a Committee- who was simply doing his duty. Then

  229
  hon. Members were obliged to come over from Ireland Co take part in a division on the Report stage. Again the House affirmed the principle and confirmed the decision of its Committee, and the Report stage was carried by a majority of thirteen. The Freeman's Journal then said they would change the scene of operations to the other House; but they have altered their mind, and although no circumstance has changed, we are now asked to reverse the decision of the House on the Second Reading, the decision of the Committee up- stairs, and the decision of the House on the Report stage, and we are asked to do this without even any suggestion of any change of circumstances since the -Bill was last considered. Interested as Members from Ireland are in having the procedure with regard to Irish Bills facilitated and cheapened, we have a right to complain of the way in which this Bill has been attacked and obstructed at every step. I should like to answer one question put by the hon. Member opposite. He asked what would be the effect of this Bill passing. The effect would be to relieve the people of Dublin from a most grinding monopoly. How has this power in the hands of the corporation been exercised? The Central Hotel in Dublin put up a gas engine because they could not get the power for electricity from the corporation. They had permission from the corporation to make a subway under the street to other parts of their premises. The instant the corporation found that these people were going to run a wire along the subway to supply power generated by this gas engine, the permission for the subway was withdrawn. Irish Members will recognise the name of Todd and Burns, a leading drapery firm in Dublin. They are obliged to supply their electric light with their own engine because it is impossible to get it from the corporation. But when they wished to connect their premises on the other side of the street the corporation immediately threatened to take proceedings against them before the magistrates. In every way the corporation have exercised their powers in the most tyrannical manner, and the desire is to get the traders of Dublin under their thumb in order to dictate the terms upon which they shall have their electric light. It is because of those things the promoters of this Bill have found it necessary to come before the House to
  230
  ask that the decision of its own Committee should be affirmed, and the Bill passed into law. It really is very amusing to see the course the corporation have adopted. Last year, when the corporation were interested in another Bill, a number of Members of this House were taken across the Channel to see the beauties of Ireland, and they were told that the only view in Ireland as to that particular Bill was in its favour. This year again, with the same purpose—there is no secret about it—the Association of Municipal Corporations were invited; they were entertained in a similar way by the Lord Mayor, and it was endeavoured to pledge them to support this Bill. There is an amusing scene reported in the Irish Times of the Lord Mayor and the hon. Member for South Islington sitting after the dinner at the Mansion House. The Lord Mayor says, "The light is very good to-night," and the hon. Member for South Islington, being obliged to praise the light the same as he would have to praise his host's wine if asked a similar question, said it was remarkably good; whereupon the Lord Mayor said there was no necessity for any Bill whatsoever. I think this red-herring business of trying to capture the Association of Municipal Corporations will, under the circumstances, fail. The association seems to have added a new maxim to the constitution—that corporations can do no wrong; but in the present case the Dublin Corporation have had this power since 1891, but have done nothing except spend £90,000, and the people of Dublin are still left without the means of having their houses lighted with electricity, which is one of the commonest facilities in every English town. Under these circumstances I cordially support the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I do not think the hon. Member opposite has paid a very high compliment to the House of Commons in the speech he has made. The whole of that speech was formed around a few expressions which, in his judgment, would excite and animate the hostility of this House against the Corporation of the City of Dublin. Time after time reference was made to the Unionists of Dublin. But this is a question which has nothing whatever to do with matters of politics. If you set up a scheme in competition to the cor-

  231
  poration, not only will you injure the Nationalist, but also the Unionist ratepayers of the city. I am surprised, too, at the attitude taken up by the hon. Member who presided over the Committee. It was his duty to defend the decision of his Committee when the Bill came to be reported to the House, but the moment he had done that I conceive his duty as chairman ceased; and to make such a speech as his on the Third Reading is to take a distinctly partisan attitude. But I do not think he has impressed hon. Members with his knowledge of how municipalities should be treated, or convinced the House that the Committee over which he presided gave a Bill of this importance that fair consideration to which it was entitled. What is the position of the citizens of Dublin? For the past eight or nine years there has been a partial scheme of electric lighting carried on by the corporation. It was an experiment; it was only a partial scheme. The only feeling of dissatisfaction in the city was that the scheme was not a complete and thorough one extending to the whole of the city. But the corporation was not in a position to extend the scheme to the whole of the city, their moans wore limited; their borrowing powers were restricted; they had to wait to see whether the system they tried was a success, and they had also to wait until they could get additional borrowing powers. Last year those additional borrowing powers were obtained, and the corporation are now able to go on with the work. The very moment they got those powers they applied to the Local Government Board for money to carry out an extensive scheme of electric lighting. Practically the syndicate promoting this Bill appeared before the inquiry hold by the Local Government Board, and gave evidence against the scheme; but, notwithstanding that, the Local Government Board approved of the loan to the corporation. The citizens of Dublin would not object to two rival companies competing with one another in supplying the electric light, but it is a wholly different thing when the citizens have to pay out of their own pocket for any loss occasioned to them by competition with the company. The position with which they are now presented is that they will probably have to invest the money of the rate-
  232
  payers to buy out the syndicates. There is no provision in the Bill to prevent this. If the corporation goes on with its undertaking simultaneously with the company it will not be a success, and the company have only to give as much trouble as will compel the corporation to buy them out. Would any other city in the Empire be treated in the same way? The hon. Member for North Antrim knows that no other city would be treated in that way by this House. I do not wish to dwell very long upon this question, but I think the hon. Member will admit that there are very few corporations in the United Kingdom that have done as much during the last twenty years to develop their city as the Dublin Corporation.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I admit there are very few like it.
  MR. HARRINGTON: At all events, what I contend is that you have no right to set up in the city of Dublin what you would not set up anywhere else. The Corporation of Dublin had to come to this House to extend the municipality to the various townships around the city. They endeavoured to establish gas works, but they were absolutely refused the powers, and the only way in which they could enter into competition with the gas company was by means of the electric light. Now it is proposed by this Bill to put the corporation in competition with a new electric lighting company, but it is only a competition against the ratepayers themselves, and on one side or the other they will have to pay. If the company go on with their scheme the ratepayers will have to buy them out eventually, and if the corporation proceed with their own scheme in competition with the company it may not be remunerative. I hope the House will not treat the citizens of Dublin as they have not treated the citizens of any other city in the Empire.
  *THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I am a citizen of Dublin, and a considerable ratepayer, and in that capacity I desire to say a few words to the House upon this Bill. I cannot conceive how it is possible for the hon. Member for North Antrim to introduce politics into this question. How

  233
  does the Freeman's Journal come into a case of this kind? How does he manage to shoot in the question of the Lord Mayor's salary? How do all those things come into a Bill which ought to be discussed calmly and on its merits? I beg of the House not to be turned aside from doing what I think fair justice to the citizens of Dublin by any political red herring which might be drawn across their track. I speak solely as a citizen of Dublin. I have been asked over and over again how it came about that the Corporation of Dublin, with the powers they have had under the provisions of the Act of Parliament, have neglected their duty in regard to electric lighting, and how it came about that they had failed to give a proper supply. I think anyone who knows the city of Dublin can give a reason for that which will satisfy the House of Commons. It has been said that the borrowing powers of the corporation were exhausted, and therefore they had not the capital. There is more in that statement than the House sees at first sight, for the Dublin Corporation with its limited borrowing powers had to choose between a great scheme of main drainage, affecting the health of the citizens; between spending money on artisans' dwellings or clearing insanitary areas, and the giving of the electric light to a certain number of people. The Dublin Corporation may be all that the Member for North Antrim has stated, but I think the Dublin Corporation has exercised a wise discretion in deciding to purify the main drainage of the city, and build homes for the poor, rather than supply electric light. It is not for the reason which has been put forward that they had failed, but because the corporation had to choose between things which they deemed to be more pressing and more urgent than even the supplying of electric light. How does the question stand now? The Dublin Corporation went to the Local Government Board and asked for an increase of their borrowing powers, and that is quite a common thing for English corporations to do. The Dublin Corporation were charged with a great sum of money borrowed for the waterworks some forty years ago, but they have now been relieved from that charge. They have just got a loan of £275,000 sanctioned by the Local Government Board. Hitherto the corporation have been unable to proceed for
  234
  lack of funds which have been spent in another way. They have now managed to get released from charges which they could not avoid; they have the money and they have got the scheme sanctioned; and now this company proposes to come in to do the same work and enter into competition with them. Dublin is a poor city and it requires all the relief of the rates which can be given to it. It already makes a handsome revenue out of water, and I think it can also make a revenue and relieve the rates out of the electric light. That is, I think, a fair ground for the corporation to object to this Bill. In view of these facts, and altogether apart from politics—for politics ought never to have been introduced—I think a fair case has been made for the Dublin Corporation. Dublin is not an ideal corporation, and is capable of improvement but I will say—and I speak with a knowledge of many local authorities in England—that I know of no corporation in England or Scotland which is contending against greater difficulties than the Dublin Corporation. It is a very poor city, and therefore anything which will relieve the rates is a very grave consideration for the city. Besides I wholly object two or three years hence, if these gentlemen get their way, to spend the rates of the city in buying them out, for that is really what it amounts to. I beg of the House to mete out to the Dublin Corporation the same treatment it would mete out to any English borough, and if hon. Members will only do that I am not afraid of the issue.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the case against the Corporation of Dublin was very much more doubtful than people would be led to suppose by just listening to the debate. In proposals of this kind he felt that it was absolutely impossible for them to get at the truth, and he did not think they were assisted even by the fact that they had had a speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee. It was said by the Member for the Harbour Division that the functions of the Chairman should be confined to what the House had relegated to the Committee, which was the question purely of the commercial and other merits of a particular proposal. But in the House they had to deal with general principles, and it had been a puzzle to him more than once to know what broad

  235
  line they could lay down for their guidance in these matters. They had a debate in the House not long ago when there was a question of electric powers before the House, and they then got some light on the subject. He was not opposed to giving powers to private firms and individuals, because the supplying of electricity upon a large scale for commercial purposes was not like supplying gas or water; that was a matter which concerned the individual, but electric lighting fell in another category. The House had already laid it down as a principle that where a corporation was able to fulfil the duty of supplying the electric light—and this corporation claimed to fulfil that duty—any private company should be prevented from interfering. That principle gave a broad line of guidance to the House, and unless they adhered to it they would fall into chaos. He was very glad that the hon. Member opposite had made those remarks, because it gave them some idea as to what the views of the Government were.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said that I was not speaking for the Government, but I spoke only in the capacity of a citizen of Dublin.
  MR. HALDANEhoped that the President of the Board of Trade would give them the benefit of his great experience in dealing with private Bills, and if he did so he thought the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that it was bettor to adhere to the general principle laid down. Upon the broad principle that this Bill had nothing to do with municipal trading he was going to vote against this Bill, for it was contrary to the practice of the House, and he felt that they would be getting themselves into difficulties on future occasions, if they did not stick to the rule which had been laid down. If the House were dealing with an application from Edinburgh or from Birmingham, and the views of those places had been made so clear as they had been in the case of Dublin, he had no doubt on which side Members would cast their votes.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The hon. Gentleman opposite has applied to me in regard to the general principle according to which the Board of Trade
  236
  act in such cases as this. I have no hesitation in saying that the general principle upon which we act is that where a corporation and a company applied for a Provisional Order we should certainly give the Order to the municipality and not to the company. That is the general principle, about which there is no dispute. But that is not quite on all fours with an application for a new supply, as in this case. I presume hon. Members opposite who oppose the measure will be prepared to admit that this would be carrying the principle a great deal too far. It is said that the Corporation of Dublin have grossly neglected the obligations cast upon them by the Act, and that is alleged as ground of opposition to the measure before the House. Under the circumstances the company were bound to proceed by means of a Bill instead of a Provisional Order. The argument in favour of the Bill is that the corporation have had electric lighting powers for eight years, and have neglected to fulfil their duty. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board says there is a good excuse for the corporation not having fulfilled its duty, and the reason he states is that the corporation wanted the money for some other purposes. But they deliberately refrained from raising the money which was required to carry out what was their duty under the powers they had obtained. I confess that if it could be shown that the corporation could not during all those eight years have raised sufficient money to perform their duty both as a sanitary authority and as promoters of the electric light—if that could be shown, then there would be some grounds for the argument put forward by my hon. friend. But I cannot myself believe that the position of the Corporation of Dublin with regard to their powers was so feeble as to render it impossible for them to obtain the money required for the purpose of carrying out their powers under the Electric Lighting Act as well as to perform their ordinary duties as a municipal corporation. My hon. friend has spoken about drainage works, the erection of artisans' dwellings, and the clearing of insanitary areas carried out by the Corporation of Dublin. But such work has had to be performed by every sanitary authority in the kingdom, and if they did not do it they wore neglecting their primary duty. The people of Dublin

  237
  have complained of the way the corporation have managed electric lighting. [Cries of "No, no!"] Is it to be supposed that the people of Dublin are so stupid and wanting in common sense and knowledge of their own convenience as not to complain about not getting that supply of electric lighting which the corporation had undertaken, when the corporation were only supplying some 215 persons? Is it contended that that is a condition of things under which the Citizens of Dublin had no right to complain? In discussing these matters we ought to consider them more from the point of view of the consumer. It is rather curious to remember what took place two years ago in regard to the Marylebone electric lighting scheme. There a company was already in existence, and the vestry applied for a Provisional Order to supply Marylebone with electricity. And what did the company say? The company said it was unfair to inflict upon them competition from a local authority, although they did not mind competition from another company. Now, in the case of Dublin, the boot is on the other leg. In Dublin the ratepayers say they cannot stand the competition of a private company. Although I do not speak upon this question as a member of the Government, yet, for my own part, I am prepared to support the Third Reading of this measure.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to correct a misapprehension. The Corporation of Dublin had not the power to borrow, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Twice they promoted a Bill for power to allow them to borrow the amount of money which they had expended on their water supply, but their Bill was thrown out in the House of Commons, and it was only the year before last that they carried their measure.
  *MR. RUTHERFORD: Being a member of the Committee who sat on this Bill, I hope the House will bear with me for a very few minutes while I say a word or two on the merits of the Bill. The position is that the corporation of Dublin have already spent £90,000 upon electric lighting, and one of their own witnesses, Major Cardew, said that they ought to have made a profit with a full load. But the result was,
  238
  instead of making a profit, they had made a loss of £2,800, which has to be provided by the ratepayers of Dublin for what?—to give an inefficient supply of electricity to 250 consumers. The Secretary to the Local Government Board has stated that this undertaking will be a profitable one, but if the Dublin Corporation cannot manage successfully electric lighting works with a capital of £90,000 how can we expect them to manage successfully an undertaking with a capital of £340,000? Besides it would not be right or fair to overcharge the consumer of electricity in, order that the rates might be relieved. Why should Parliament give this monopoly to the corporation when the supply is both bad and dear? Without going further into this question, I hope the House will decide the matter upon its merits. One word in regard to the Municipal Corporations Association. When the Bill was before the House last Tuesday that association sent a circular round which may have influenced a considerable number of hon. Members, but, so far as my research of the records goes, this association has never discussed the evidence given before the Committee at all. I might call the attention of the House to a previous circular issued by this association in regard to electricity Bills, including this very Bill. I submit that is exactly what has taken place in Dublin. Well, I can only say that, after hearing the evidence, that is the decision the Committee arrived at; and even the member of the Committee who differed from us, admitted that the Dublin Corporation had not done what they might or ought to have done. I hope in the interests of the consumer and the development of electricity, the House will confirm the decision of the Committee and pass the Third Reading of this Bill. I have made a research into the records of this association, and I find that it is only a very short time since this question of electricity has come before them at all. But the association had issued a circular previously in regard to Bills before the House, including this very Bill. And what did they then say?—
  "It is submitted that in order to justify the granting of electrical powers to a private company in any town already supplied by the local authority, it ought to be clearly shown that they have failed in their duty, or are not doing their best to develop the undertaking, or are negligent of or indifferent to the wants of the town."

  239
  [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] As one of the members of the Committee, I submit that that was the decision we arrived at; and even the member who differed from us admits that the Dublin Corporation had not done what they could. I do hope, in the interests of the consumer and the development of electricity, the House will pass the Third Reading of this Bill.
  *MR. BLAKE: It seems to me that the course of this debate and the narrowness of the former divisions furnish justification for those who feel strongly, as many of us do, that to pass this Bill would be a calamity to the city of Dublin, and a very great infringement of the rights of the corporation of Dublin to ask once more the judgment of the House upon it. It is well that we should find what the governing principle is which should animate us in considering this Bill. I affirm it to be the settled view of the House that with reference to those public utilities, powers to exercise and take charge of which have been granted by the general law to municipalities, these ought not to be interfered with. I do not say that there is a rule without exception; but the corporation ought to have the first chance at any rate, and a fair chance to discharge their duty. The President of the Board of Trade has pointed out that that is the rule of the Board of Trade with reference to competing applications. In all the Acts which have been passed lately there has been no case in which competition was allowed when the municipality came first, and that is a perfectly right principle to go upon. Those who talk of monopoly being an evil in the case of the Dublin Corporation suggest the very opposite to what I believe has been accepted as a very sound principle. A corporation monopoly is not an evil monopoly, of which an invidious use may be made. It differs from a private monopoly, which is a monopoly for private gain from the discharge of public duties. A monopoly with reference to public utilities granted to a corporation with a popular organisation, such as now exists in Dublin, where there is the popular control of a great city with a quarter of a million of inhabitants and 40,000 voters, is a monopoly of all for the benefit of all. It is not the monopoly of a few for their own private benefit at the expense of all. Where can you have the power of a more vigilant
  240
  and effective control of the management than when the managers are elected by the ratepayers who gain or suffer? Where you have everything done in public, with the people on the spot watching over the affair, the position is very different from the control exercised by a board of directors of a private company. What is asked here? It is that the corporation should retain full municipal rights in respect to all that class of matters which involve interference with the arteries of the traffic of the city. It is of the greatest consequence that full consideration should be given to the question whether a scheme involves any interference with the streets, as, for example, drains, trams in more modern times, water, gas, and electricity. All these things involve more or less interference with the streets, and that interference would be doubled or trebled if power were given to private individuals or companies to deal with the streets. Moreover, it would render more difficult and remote that to which I look forward—namely, the creation of a great system of subways or conduits under the main streets for the enclosure of all the pipes, wires, cables, and so forth, the machinery of these public utilities, so as to prevent the constant breaking up of the streets. So there is a special reason why the corporation should have not merely the first chance, but the sole power over the streets, and why no additional power of interference with the streets should be given to a private company; otherwise we shall have the corporation breaking up one side of the street and the private company the other—to the inconvenience of the public and the constant interruption of the traffic. Again, if a private company obtains such powers it only means that inevitably at some future time the corporation will, in order to regain full control of their own streets, and their own functions, have to buy out the company at a greatly added expense. Therefore, I maintain that unless a case is made out for altogether exceptional treatment, the Corporation of the City of Dublin have a right to the opportunity of putting into force their full powers for the electric lighting of that city, unhampered by the powers proposed to be given by this Bill. Is there then any reason why you should not give to Dublin that which you give to many other smaller and less important

  241
  towns? Dublin is the capital of Ireland; its corporation is very ancient; there are a quarter of a million inhabitants within its restricted limits, and 75,000 sleeping outside these limits; and the opinion of this House has been twice most emphatically expressed that these 75,000 ought to he enclosed within enlarged limits and merged in the electorate of the Corporation of that City of Dublin, which is now said to be incapable of managing its own electric lighting concerns. There is no case here for exceptional treatment An appeal was made by the hon. Member for North Antrim—which, I think, must have been heard with regret—to English and Scottish Unionists not to support the Corporation of the City of Dublin, but to vote for the Bill. I thought, if there was one thing more than another to which the Unionists, of whom the hon. Member claims to be one, had pledged themselves on hundreds of platforms here and in Scotland, it was that, although they would not grant political self-government to Ireland, they would give Ireland the fullest, freest municipal government—equal treatment, similar treatment, simultaneous treatment to that conceded to England. That was the pledge of the Unionists, and now these gentlemen call out for inequality of treatment, for a different treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] The House will judge by what has been said, and will decide between the statements of the hon. Member below mo, who was a member of the Corporation Committee, and those of the hon. Member for North Antrim. I say, then, that to act in the way proposed by this Bill would be contrary to the general practice, contrary to recent legislation, and to the manner of dealing with much smaller and less important municipalities. It would be an action, I think, unworthy of men who I am sure are honest Unionists, and who should be the last to do it in the special circumstances of this case. It is said, however, that the Corporation of the City of Dublin has shown its incapacity, and that it has been so incapable in the past that it ought to be pronounced impotent for all time to handle such a business as an electric lighting concern. We ought not, I submit, to be very assiduous to enter into the question of whether the corporation have acted well or wisely under their powers. It may be very difficult adequately to deal with
  242
  that question. We must always remember that if Dublin has erred, it is Dublin that has suffered; if Dublin errs now it is Dublin that will suffer. I look for a future when electric power will be very generally employed, and the electric light put into many houses, and I believe it would be better to give cheap electric light and. power, and spread their use than to keep up high prices and limit their use. We ought to do all we can to promote the adoption of the electric light. In Canada and America it is commonly employed in every town of any importance, but here its adoption has been slow and haphazard. The conduct of the whole business of the practical utilisation of electrical energy, especially in the development of electric lighting, is no great credit to the English nation, but rather one to be ashamed of. But I repeat that if Dublin goes wrong on that point of view it is Dublin which will suffer, and if Dublin Corporation keeps going wrong the citizens are well competent to make their representatives, who are yearly elected, do their duty. Dublin, at any rate, did not err by waiting a long time. It was one of the earliest corporations to take up electric lighting while yet in its infancy in this country It established a small plant at the cost of £30,000—these are facts which I gathered as well as I could from the reports of the proceedings before the Committee. I do not understand it to be denied that the best system and the best materials which were then available were used and the system for some time was satisfactory in its working though the extent was small. It was increased from time to time, but not to the extent which it might have been increased, owing to the limitation of the corporation's borrowing powers. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Local Government Board has pointed out that other things were being done by the Corporation at the same time. But they had been engaged in creating the Vartry water works at a much earlier date, and the money which might have been used for this purpose was so absorbed. £700,000 was deducted from their borrowing powers, which £700,000, in the end, it was acknowledged by this House, ought not to have been deducted, so that difficulty was, but only last year, removed. In that state of the case the corporation, not being able to spend more,

  243
  spent gradually up to the sum of £90,000, which was the limit to which they could go. Then as to the quality of the light. In the first instance there was no complaint as to the quality of the light, but after some years it turned out that the cables that had been used, which had been purchased from a firm of the highest reputation, and which were supposed to be the best that could be obtained, from some cause failed; there was something wrong with the rubber casing or something of that kind, and they failed more or less, and the light became unsatisfactory. The same thing happened with several boroughs here. A couple of years ago plans were adopted to make this good, and somewhat to extend the system and bring it up to date; that was done, but there has been some misapprehension as to the cost. It was said that some £30,000 that had been spent had been lost by means of these defective wires and cables, but that is not the fact. I find the cables cost between £4,000 and £5,000, and that £26,000 or £30,000 was taken and mainly used for the purpose of utilising the most scientific knowledge and most scientific machinery in order to bring the extension up to date in accordance with modern ideas. No blame can be put on the corporation for those defective wires. Of course, while the decay was going on and now work and reorganisation was in progress the disorganisation grew greater, and then it was that that item grew up to which the hon. Gentleman referred as a charge upon the rates of £2,800 a year—in reality, of £2,800 for one single year, 1899, at a time when the corporation was re-modelling the whole of the work, and the whole affair was in an impossible condition. But since the works have been re-modelled, confidence has been restored, and a considerable number of new subscribers have come in. As to the quantity of the supply it is totally inadequate. Nobody has said that it is sufficient to light the whole city, and the sufficient reason given for its being insufficient is that the corporation had not the funds to make it so, and that the want of lighting power is due to the want of borrowing power. It is also said that the price is too high, and that may be so, because where you have a small supply, you always do have a higher price than you would with a large supply, because the fixed charges do not rise pro-
  244
  portionately with the increased demand. Therefore, you can supply a large number at a lower price per unit than you can a small number. And that is what Dublin wants to do, and is prepared to do, and that is what it is proposed by the promoters of this Bill to do. The hon. Member spoke of a charge upon the rates of £2,800; with regard to this I will give the House a few figures which I have drawn from the reports of the proceedings before the Committee. Since 1892 the Corporation has paid out of the profits, first of all the working expenses, then £1,000 which they have put aside for depreciation account, then over £10,000 for the interest on the construction loans, and over £10,000 more towards the sinking fund for redeeming the capital of the loans. So that over £20,000 has actually been paid out of the receipts in respect of matters which, in the case of a company with a share capital, would not have been chargeable, and thus a substantial dividend would have been realised. That is what the corporation has done apart from the rates. The rates paid during the whole eight years are less than £ 6,000, the whole of which, save £200, has gone in further payments to the sinking fund for the redemption of the loan. So that what the Dublin ratepayers have done is not to pay for the keeping of the works going even in the last year of disorganisation, but to pay £6,000 towards the redemption of the capital of the loans raised by the corporation for the purpose of creating the works, and Dublin is so much the better oft' for every penny spent in that way. I have touched upon these questions, but really what we have to deal with is a later and altogether a different situation, the situation which obtained and existed at the time this Bill was applied for. What was it? It was acknowledged that the situation as before was a temporary one and could not last. It was not contended that the corporation could continue with only 250 consumers and eighty lights. It did not think so itself. It had twice made efforts to obtain relief from the limitation of its borrowing powers, and it made a third effort in the year 1899, and the real question is how things moved in that year. In the anticipation of this relief, on the 29th of March, 1899, the corporation called in a consulting engineer who has since been made consulting engineer to the works,

  245
  to prepare a scheme, and from that time onward negotiations went on, and a scheme was being elaborated. In the meantime the Bill for their relief was going through Parliament. On the 9th of August the Bill received the Royal Assent, containing a clause striking out the charge in respect to the borrowing powers of £700,000 by a charge on the waterworks. They were therefore free to act on their scheme upon a large scale in the month of September, and on 22nd September the agreement with the engineer was reported to Council. It was not until the month of November that notice was given of this Bill, so that the corporation, when they saw the prospect of obtaining these borrowing powers, had, even before the Bill passed, in the hope that it would pass, moved in this matter. Notice of this Bill, as I said, was given in November. What happened? The expenditure being about a quarter of a million, application was made to the Local Government Board to sanction the loan. There was the usual public inquiry and the loan was opposed; but it was sanctioned; and tenders were invited with the most satisfactory results. The proposed charge per unit on the average between public and private lighting is about 3½d., comparing favourably with the company's valuation. It is plain, therefore, that the moment the corporation had the funds—and even in anticipation of getting the funds—they took such steps as they could. They proceeded with due diligence, and they had their scheme in order long before this Bill came to Parliament. With regard to coal the generating station is at a convenient point, and the price of coal there will be as cheap as anywhere in Dublin, and there is no reason why the corporation's plan should not result in their producing electric light as cheaply and as satisfactorily as it would be produced by any public company. The people of Dublin want their own electricity. Their council ask for it, and their members speak for it in this House. Then why should their aspirations be set aside, and a company set up to do that which is pre-eminently the work of the corporation. Is it because Dublin was so much earlier in this matter than other cities here that she is to be treated as a defaulter now? The question of default has to be treated as at the time of the default; I show here that
  246
  the question of default does not now arise. Here Dublin has got the money, and she is ready to go on; the problem was attacked, and the determination arrived at before there was any notice of this Bill. Is it to be said that that determination is to receive exceptional treatment? Is that the Unionist notion in England or Scotland? Is it because Dublin has too much of this work to do? The Dublin Corporation has only got the water, which it does well. It has not got the gas, and it has not got the trams. It has only got the water and, as it hopes, the electric light, which it is now in a position to undertake—that is all. I suggest it would be a fitting thing for this House to leave the corporation and the people of Dublin to deal with their own electric light, to let the Dublin people manage their own affairs according to their own desire. It is they who will gain by success, and it is they who will lose by failure. Let them take the risk, if they wish to take it, with a free hand and full responsibility. I believe you would do so if Dublin were in England or Scotland, and I hope you will do so even though Dublin be in Ireland.
  *COLONEL HUGHES: The Local Government Board of Ireland, after an inquiry in which all interests were heard, lately granted powers to the Corporation of Dublin to borrow over a quarter of a million of money. That was done for the purpose of enabling the corporation to go on with their scheme. If we go against the decision of the Local Government Board in Ireland, we will admit of proceedings which are very adverse, if not entirely ruinous, to the Dublin Corporation. I admit that the corporation have been in default. They might have borrowed this money before, but whatever the fault previously to the powers for this loan being obtained, they had to prepare their plans and say how much money they would require when application was made for borrowing powers. That scheme was initiated before this Bill came before Parliament. The powers were granted to the Corporation of Dublin to enable them to go on. I am bound to say if the Corporation of the City of London were in the same position, and if they had received the sanction of Parliament to borrow enough money to go on with the scheme, I do not think this House would allow the City of London

  247
  to be hampered in carrying out their views. I do not see, for my part, why the City of Dublin, which may have been dilatory in the past, should not have a fresh start. There has been no default since this loan was granted, and I see no reason to dispossess the corporation of their prior right to light their own city.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is stated that you are doing by this Bill what you would not do for any city in England or Scotland, but I repudiate that suggestion. I say that in my judgment the gravest injustice would be done to the ratepayers of Dublin generally unless this Bill is passed. Fancy an English city appealing to mo as an Irishman under these conditions: "For ten years I have covered the ground, and by the Statute of 1882 I have been able to shut out all competition. I have expended in these ten years £100,000 of the ratepayers' money. How many of the ratepayers have I served of the quarter of a million people in my area? I have served exactly 250." What right would any English municipality have to come to me and say, "Now will you, as an Irish Member exercising your vote in this House, see that no competition with an authority of that kind is to be tolerated until the end of time?" That is the sole position, and I say for myself that if any English corporation from Manchester to Leeds, and from Leeds to Bradford, having had the expending of £100,000 of the citizens' money, and was only able to supply 250 people in the interval, made such a request I would freely vote to allow some competition to be introduced. My hon. friend the Member for North Longford has said, and said truly, that electric lighting is in a disgraceful position in the three kingdoms. Why? Because of this Act of 1882; because, instead of allowing competition and the free play of enterprise and capital, you said, "We will give it over solely and wholly into the hands of municipalities." That was the policy Parliament laid down in 1882. You had to correct it in 1888, and yon had to make a further correction in 1890. We have to take up this position—should there be free trade in a matter of this kind, or should there not be free trade? That is the whole question. I want to know what satisfaction it is to mo to pay sevenpence to the corporation. If they were John Smith, I
  248
  would kick against it. What satisfaction is it to me that it is the ratepayers' money that is being spent? I want the electric light for twopence-halfpenny—I do not care whether it is from the corporation or anybody else. Then it is said, "Oh, if you grant this Bill you will have to provide £300,000 or £400,000 at some other time to buy out this company." The only places where sums of money have been given to electric lighting companies to buy them out were places whore the corporations had no rights at all. The companies started, and the corporations bought them out after they had been put on a good footing, and it was well worth their while to do so. What is the case here? They have got their own rights and their own powers. We are told that they have got the means of carrying it out. Why do they not carry it out, and why should not the citizens get the benefit on the one hand of the action of the corporation, and on the other hand of the action of the promoter's of this Bill? I want to know the necessity for buying anybody out. Give them a fair field and no favour. If it is in the interest of the corporation to buy them out let them do so. I do not see why a corporation, having spent £100,000, and prepared to spend £300,000, should be anxious to buy anybody out. The only other point I wish to allude to is this: we are told that the corporation have now got a new scheme, and that the old defects were owing to the fact that they started originally with no borrowing powers and with a small capital. I want to know, if I have any undertaking what business I have to get a monopoly if I have not the means of carrying that monopoly into effect efficiently. Why should the corporation begin such an undertaking upon a small capital? Would any merchant be listened to in such a case? Supposing I make nails or anything else, and I begin with a small capital, and I claim that you should not let anybody interfere with me. Would that be listened to for a moment? Why is what is regarded as absurd in the case of an individual to be sacred in the case of a corporation? Why did they begin with insufficient funds? Why did they throw away £100,000 of the ratepayers' money? If they threw away that sum, why should the corporation now be allowed to shut out anybody else who

  249
  are prepared to do better what they have failed to do? Before the corporation's scheme can be carried into effect the permission of Pembroke township, through two miles of which the mains must run, must be got, and Pembroke township is fighting the corporation tooth and nail in the Committee of the House of Lords, and Pembroke will never give that permission.
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is a clear understanding that Pembroke will withdraw its opposition.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to know upon what grounds that clear understanding was given. Pembroke has been asked again and again to withdraw its opposition, and the solicitor for the Pembroke township said he would do his best in the matter. I have discovered that the same gentleman is also the solicitor for the Dublin Gas Company. I want to know also why is it that the most effective lobbyist—and I never knew a Bill to be lobbied as this has been—has been using his influence against this Bill? The statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has been challenged by the Member for the Harbour Division as to the action of the corporation in regard to the Central Hotel. All I have to say about it is that I have received a communication from that company myself bearing out everything the hon. Gentleman opposite has said upon that subject. I do not think, however, that this question should be considered from that point of view at all. I think we have now arrived at much bigger issues. The question is whether this House will allow Free Trade to be established where there has been in the past a total failure on the part of municipalities to do their duty.
  MR. DAVID MACIVER: I desire to say a word in support of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The promoters of the Bill are the Dublin Corporation. I have lived through the history of a kindred enterprise—I refer to the tramways of Liverpool. Exactly what occurred there is, I believe, what will occur in this case if this Bill is granted, and this company comes into the domain of the corporation. It will not be many years until, as in the case of the Liverpool tramways and the Birkenhead tramways, the corporation at considerable expenditure of the ratepayers' money have to buy out the private company then in possession. This company is not a company of philanthropists. They do not go there for the purpose of conferring some gift on the citizens of Dublin. I think they go there with the idea of making money for themselves when they have created a successful concern. It is merely on that ground that I wish to speak strongly in support of those hon. Members who are opposing the Bill. I cannot sit down without saying that, as a strong Unionist, whether this involves the question of Home Rule or not, we should look at this as one of the matters which principally, I would say almost entirely, concern the Corporation of Dublin. Can it be supposed for a moment that if Ireland had charge of her own local affairs Dublin would be treated differently from any city in England? For these reasons I intend to vote against this Bill and to give what support I can to the corporation.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 168; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 166.)

  AYES.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bigwood, James

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bond, Edward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Arrol, Sir William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Atkinson, Rt Hon. John

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Brassey, Albert

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Crilly, Daniel

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgw)

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts)

  Carvill, Patrick George H.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Beach, Rt. Hn W. W. B (Hants.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mnc'r)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Ffrench, Peter

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Finch, George H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lecky, Rt. Hon William Edw. H.

  Round, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Rutherford, John

  Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Fry, Lewis

  Lowther, Rt. Hn J (Kent)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Gibney, James

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

  Stewart, Sir Mk. J. M'Taggart

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Morris, Samuel

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Gunter, Colonel

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir W. H.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Warde, Lieut. -Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E. (Tauntn

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Myers, William Henry

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Pierpoint, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs Newton)

  Mr. Arthur O'Connor and

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

  Mr. William Moore.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Aird, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Crombie, John William

  Gold, Charles

  Ambrose, Robert

  Daly, James

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Dillon, John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Baker, Sir John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bethell, Commander

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hedderwick, T. Charles H.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Duckworth, James

  Helder, Augustus

  Billson, Alfred

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hogan, James Francis

  Blake, Edward

  Emmott, Alfred

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton

  Holland, William Henry

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Evershed, Sydney

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Houston, R. P.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Burns, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Keswick, William

  Burt, Thomas

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Caldwell, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flower, Ernest

  Leng, Sir John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  252

  253

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a)

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Spencer, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  O'Kelly, James

  Spicer, Albert

  Lowles, John

  O'Malley, William

  Steadman, William Charles

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Parnell, John Howard

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n'sC.)

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Stevenson, Francis S,

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Strachey, Edward

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Perks, Robert William

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tennant, Harold John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Price, Robert John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  M'Ewan, William

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wason, Eugene

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Woods, Samuel

  Murnaghan, George

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyndham, George

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Sheehy, David

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Mr. Carew and Mr. Harrington

  O'Dowd, John

  Souttar, Robinson

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Third Reading put off for three months.

  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I wish to ask the hon. Member whether this motion has the approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MR. CALDWELL: That is so. It may be taken for granted that all these motions standing in my name have the assent of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
254
Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (Abandonment) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords].
South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords].
Withington Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

255
Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
London (St. Marylebone) Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [Lords].
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LINCOLN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PLYMOUTH, STONEHOUSE, AND DEVON PORT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
BURY AND DISTRICT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [Lords].
  GLASGOW BUILDING REGULATIONS BILL [Lords].

    GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords].
    SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.

    MARGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER.)
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Margate Corporation Bill [Lords], to insert in Part VIIL, page 50, after Clause 97, a provision to the effect that the scheme for the establishment of a superannuation fund under this part of this Act shall not come into operation until it has been registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Friendly Societies Act, subject to the provisions, of this part of this Act.—(Mr. Strachey.)
    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRIGHTON AND PRESTON UNITED DISTRICT, ETC.) BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed,, without amendment.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 9) BILL
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
    PERTH AND PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

BARRY RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [Lords].
Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 7).
Mr. DE TATTON EGERTONreported from the Committee on Group 7 of Railway Bills, That Mr. Robert Cameron, one of the members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Ordered, That the Committee on Group 7 of Railway Bills have leave to make a make a Special Report in the case of the Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—(Mr. de Tatton Egerton.)

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and Special Report [Provisional Orders confirmed].
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section B), with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section A), with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill, without amendment.
That they have agreed to—North Warwickshire Water Bill and Widnes and Runcorn Bridge Bill, with Amendments.
That they have agreed to—Amendment to Leith Burgh Provisional Order Bill [Lords], without amendment.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Berwick-upon-Tweed, Harrow-on-the-Hill, Malton, the extension of the area of supply of the Midland Electric Corporation for Power Distribution, Limited, Newhaven, Seaford, Thirsk, Totnes, Witney, and Woking." Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Bredbury and Romiley Urban District Council Tramways, Huddersfield Corporation Tramways, Hurst Urban District Council Tramways, Kearsley Urban District Council Tramways, Prestwich Urban District Council Tramways, Reddish Urban District Council Tramways, and Wigan Corporation Tramways." Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1899, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway Company." Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway Bill [Lords].

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 277.]
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 278.]
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 279.]
BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the British Medical Association, in favour, to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from New Barnet (five); and Moreton-in-Marsh; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Cambridge, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition in favour, from Hunslet Moor; Burnley; Middlesbrough (fifteen); Carlisle (two); Ealing (three); Holling-bourne; Lazenby; Dudley; Great Missenden; Halifax; Birmingham; Monmouth; Kilburn; Penygroes; North Ormesby; Bridlington; Hindringham; Bourne; Northampton; and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Balmaghie; Enzie; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petition from Middlesbrough, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Aston Manor; Burnley; Middlesbrough; Dudley; Blaenavon; Carlisle; Lazenby; Hatfield (throe); New Barnet; Brierley Hill; North Ormesby; Penygroes; Birmingham; Kilburn; Batley; and Hindringham; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Penygroes, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING OF GIRLS.
  Copy presented, of Report on Industrial Training of Girls in separate and district schools in the Metropolitan District, by Miss Ina Stansfeld, Assistant Inspector [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Judicial Rents during the month of November, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Ninth Report of the Board, being for the period from 1st April, 1899, to 31st March, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAR CASUALTIES (NON-COMBATANTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto. [Address 21st May; Mr. Humphreys-Owen]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Fifty-fourth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor, with Appendix [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 246.]

  GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the

  261
  Gas Order Confirmation (No. 2) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 247.]

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AREAS TRANSFERRED).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement showing, in respect of each administrative county of England and Wales, the under-mentioned particulars in regard to the areas (if any) which have been transferred to such county, and which form part of another county, for the purpose of Parliamentary Elections, in the following form:—

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  Name of the administrative county in which the area is situated.

  Name of parishes or parts of parishes in each such area.

  Acreage.

  Population, Census 1891.

  Number of Parliamentary Electors in 1900.

  Name of Parliamentary constituency in which each such area is comprised.

  Local Act or Provisional Order by which the area was transferred to the administrative county.

  —(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)

QUESTION'S.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK—POSITION AT PEKING.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the legations at Peking, the composition and command of the relieving force, and its present position.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Admiral Bruce, telegraphing from Ta-ku, at 4 p.m., 30th June, states that he has heard from the German Admiral that a Chinese runner three days from Peking, who arrived at Tientsin, 29th June, brought despatches saying that all Europeans were in great distress, that the German Minister had been murdered by Chinese regular troops.
  262
  The total allied force available is now about 13,000 men. As the troops have been rapidly arriving we do not yet know what arrangements may have been made locally for the command of an expedition, but it has not yet been thought possible to attempt a further advance.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the advance from Tientsin has not yet started?
  *MR. BRODRICK: It has not been thought possible to attempt a further advance.

  THE YANG-TSZE PROVINCES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with regard to the Yang-tsze Provinces, the Consuls have signed a declaration undertaking not to interfere so long as order is maintained by the Viceroys in those regions; and if so, whether this declaration has been ratified by the representatives of the Powers at Peking; and whether in view of the present state of affairs in China, he will state what steps are contemplated for the protection of British life and property in these provinces.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The Consuls have been in communication with the Viceroys, who are quite aware that support will be given them by Her Majesty's Government in preserving order. It is obviously impossible that the representatives of the Powers at Peking should be consulted, as no communications are passing with them. The senior naval officer at Woosung has full discretion to act where necessary.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS—COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be able to inform the House as to the constitution and terms of reference of the proposed Committee which is to proceed to South Africa and inquire into the arrangements for treating the sick and wounded.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think I can make any statement to-day. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down the question for Thursday.

  NEGOTIATIONS PRECEDING THE WAR—THE FIVE YEARS FRANCHISE.
  *MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state on what conditions President Kruger offered a five years franchise before the outbreak of the war to the Outlanders in the Transvaal; and whether he can also state what are the naturalisation qualifications and penalties in Austria, Russia, New South Wales, America, and England.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The conditions of President Kruger's offer are contained in the Parliamentary Paper, South Africa, 9521, page 44 and following pages. With regard to the second part of the question I think that the excursion into comparative jurisprudence which I am invited to make is somewhat outside my province.
  *MR. FLAVIN: Is not the qualification in Austria ten years? If so, why go to war with Kruger on the franchise?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT CONTRACTS.
  MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will supply to the House a list of all those companies, firms, or persons from whom the Admiralty have chartered steamers during the last twelve months, and also the names of all those firms or individuals who have acted as agents or managers for steamship owners in their negotiations with the Admiralty during the same period; and, whether he will consider the advisability of declining in the future to negotiate or enter into contracts with those steamship owners who carry on their negotiations with the Admiralty through Members of this House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): Column 5 of the Return No. 184, ordered by the House of Commons on 6th February last, giving particulars of vessels engaged for the conveyance of troops and horses for South Africa, which is now
  264
  being printed, will show the names of the owners of all such vessels. I have no objection to furnishing the hon. Member with the names of the firms or individuals who have acted as agents or managers for the owners in their negotiations with the Admiralty. In regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question it would not be in the public interest; to exclude all steamship owners or companies who occasionally communicate with the Admiralty through their representatives who are Members of this House, thereby excluding some whose fleets have been invaluable to the nation.
  MR. BUCHANAN: When will the Return be presented? It is six months old already.
  MR. MACARTNEY: It is being printed. I should think it will be circulated very shortly.

  KOORN SPRUIT DISASTER—ROODEVAAL ENGAGEMENT: LOSS OF THE DERBYSHIRES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the announcement in the London Gazette of the conferring of the Victoria Cross on four soldiers for their conspicuous bravery during the action of Koorn Spruit, on 31st March, 1900, with particulars of the disposition of the troops on this field of battle, the War Office will now communicate to the public the details of the disaster at Koorn Spruit, and respecting the officer in charge of the convoy when the greater portion of the baggage column and five out of the six guns of the leading battery of the Royal Artillery were captured by falling into the ambush laid for them by the Boers.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I will answer this and Question 43 in the name of the hon. Member.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, no! Take them separately.
  Question 43 was as follows:—"To ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the account, now in the possession of the War Office, giving the details of the surrender of the 4th Battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment, has been withheld from publication.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to anticipate by way of question and answer any exercise which the Secretary of State may see fit to make of his discretion to publish despatches and reports on military operations.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the War Office publish the name before the General Election?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I wished to put Question 43, but as the hon. Gentleman does not appear to be in his place I will put it to-morrow.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The question has already been answered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I object to its being answered in the way it was. I will repeat it to-morrow.

  INOCULATION AGAINST TYPHOID—PURCHASES OF SERUM.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the medical expert at Netley Hospital who recommended the inoculation with so-called anti-typhoid serum of troops sent to South Africa has sold serum to the Government; if so, how many doses were purchased from him, and at what price; and, whether the doctor has pecuniarily profited by the sale of the serum.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Was any serum sold by this individual to the Government?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed there was no sale or profit from the transaction.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS GRANTED WITHOUT EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many commissions in the Army have been, since the commencement of the present war in South Africa, granted to gentlemen who have not passed any military examination, and on what principle of selection have these commissions without examina-
  266
  tion been granted, and can he say out of the total number of commissions thus granted how many have been given in the Royal Engineers, Royal Artillery, Household regiments, Cavalry, and regiments of the Line respectively.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The numbers of commissions granted without examination are as follow:—Engineers, nil; Artillery, 266; Cavalry, 139; Guards, 31; Infantry, 657; total, 1,093. Two commissions were offered to each battalion of Militia; the candidates were nominated by the commanding officers and recommended through the General Officer commanding. In the Volunteers a certain number were offered to each district, nominations resting with the General Officer commanding. A certain number were offered to the Universities, the nominations resting with the University authorities. Commissions were offered to various colonies, the nominations being placed in the hands of Governors in consultation with the Imperial Officers commanding the Colonial forces. Some were placed at the disposal of Lord Roberts. Promotions from the ranks to commissions were also made, some being recommended by Lord Roberts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately how many promotions there have been from the ranks?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: We have not got the total number of promotions from the ranks. Fifty commissions were specially allotted to Lord Roberts in addition to any promotions he might recommend for distinguished services on the field. We have not yet got his recommendations.

  NATIVE LABOUR IN RHODESIA.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the British South Africa Company proposals for the further regulation of native labour in Rhodesia, and will he state whether the subject is now under his consideration; and whether any Reports have been received from the Resident Commissioner in Rhodesia as to the condition and treatment of natives under the British South Africa Company's administration; and, if

  267
  so, whether they will be communicated to the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The British South Africa Company have informed me that the administration of Southern Rhodesia is not yet in a position to submit its proposals. In December last I requested the High Commissioner to instruct Sir M. Clarke to furnish a report upon the recruiting of labour for the mines, but I have not yet received it, owing, no doubt, to the pressure of military questions and the difficulties of communication.

  RED CROSS SOCIETIES—PRUSSIAN KNIGHTS OF ST. JOHN.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the attention of the War Office was called, in connection with the arrangements made with the Red Cross Society in 1898, which appear to have been continued in the present war, to the organisation of the Prussian Knights of St. John, and the nature of the co-operation and division of duties between thorn and the Prussian Military authorities in time of war; and whether the Secretary of State for War will move the Foreign Office to call upon Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin for a Report upon the subject.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, the attention of the War Office was called to this subject by the report of the British delegate to an International Conference of Red Cross Societies held at Vienna in 1897, and the present organisation is based on that report. The Secretary of State will act upon the suggestion made in the second paragraph of the question.

  ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS—TERMS OF RE-ENLISTMENT.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the cases of Privates Taylor and White, of the Army Ordnance Corps, who, having served seven years in the Army and five years in the Reserve, had completed their Army engagements, and obtained this year, on re-enlisting into the Royal Reserve, the usual bounty of £12, and have since taken on to complete the service of twenty-one years with the
  268
  colours; whether he is aware that these men, on re-enlisting for the purpose of serving out the full term of twenty-one years, are now under orders to China, and have been apprised that the £12 bounty which they received will be deducted from their pay; whether, as the former practice under which a man who served five or seven years with the colours and then went into the Reserve could not return to the colours for the purpose of serving out his time so as to be entitled to a pension unless he repaid his deferred pay has been for some time abrogated, he can say on what ground it has been rescinded without notice to the men affected by the alteration; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it will be provided that Reservists on re-enlistment will not be liable to refund the sums paid to them as bounty.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The bounty of £12 was specially attached to the engagement for one year's service at home. Men re-enlisting for service at home and abroad to complete twenty-one years' service will have the advantage of a pension at the end of their term. The Secretary of State for War does not consider that such men are entitled to retain the bounty; but the refund is diminished by a deduction of £1 for each month which they have served since their re-enlistment for home service.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did these men know that the bounty would be taken from them?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes,, that was one of the terms of re-enlistment. One of the conditions of re-enlistment for home or foreign service is that the bounty should be refunded.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman see that in the future the War Office clearly notifies that in such cases the money will have to be repaid?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I think the notice is perfectly clear. I will, however, look into it, and if it is not sufficiently clear I will see that it is made quite clear.

  RESERVE OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War

  269
  Office will he explain why, when all officers of the Reserve rejoining under Paragraph 488, Clause C, of the Royal Pay Warrant (whether ordered on active service or otherwise), have been granted an outfit allowance of £100 to cover the expense of providing themselves with the necessary uniform, exception has alone been made in the case of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and will he say whether the word officer, used in Part I. of the Royal Warrant, includes medical as well as officers of any other corps.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Outfit allowance will he granted in these cases.

  MILITIA COMMISSIONS—EXAMINATION.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain on what ground the examination of Militia officers for commissions in the Army, which it was announced several months previously would be held last March, was cancelled about a fortnight before the appointed time, and may the announcement that a Militia examination for commissions in the Army will be held next September be regarded as definite; and will he say whether the War Office authorities will be prepared to give definite information as to the holding of this examination, having regard to the fact that parents sent their sons at some expense to army tutors to prepare for an examination which was announced to take place in March last and was not held, and to prevent the impression that the examination announced for next September will not be held, and that commissions will be obtained without examination.
  The following question on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state whether Militia candidates doing duty with their embodied battalions will be forced to pass a competitive examination in September; and, if so, in what subjects they will be examined.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the South-east Division of Essex will allow me to reply to his question at the same time.
  270
  The competitive examination announced for last March was not held because the number of candidates who entered their names was less than the number of commissions offered for competition.
  MAJOR RASCH: As the hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my question, I will put it again tomorrow.

  MILITIA OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that the taking away of the 4s. per diem messing allowance of Militia officers, formerly allowed them during their annual training, and the substitution of a sum of £100 bounty at the expiration of the period of embodiment, entails expense on married officers (who are compelled during the embodiment of the regiments to keep up two establishments—the mess at the station where they are quartered and a home for their wives and families) a messing allowance can be granted to those officers who are married in addition to the embodiment bounty.
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State for War is unable to make a distinction between the married and unmarried officer in the direction suggested in the question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Secretary of State consider the propriety of reverting to the old system, seeing that these gentlemen are suffering a great hardship?
  *MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State has already fully considered the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then it is a case of very bad judgment.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state in general terms the qualifications required for election to the Chelsea Hospital, and what is the amount of the pension per diem bestowed upon those who are elected; and whether the pensioners are given any of the tobacco confiscated by Her Majesty's Custom House officers; and, if not, whether there is any reason for denying them a share in a luxury that costs the country nothing.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: In-pensioners are selected from permanent out-pensioners of excellent character, who have been rendered incapable, through wounds or injuries resulting from Army service, or through other causes, provided they are over fifty-five years of age, or who are required for employment in the hospital. The men are paid according to rank, but on admission they receive, as a rule, 1d. a day, supplemented by 1d. a day out of the private revenues of the hospital; their out-pension ceases. Tobacco is provided out of the private revenues derived from the Drouly legacy. The grant of confiscated tobacco is confined to cases in which the purchase of tobacco would otherwise be defrayed out of moneys voted by Parliament.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH BILL—SUPREME JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE EMPIRE.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information respecting the views of the Australian Governments as to additional judicial appointments in connection with the passing of the Federation Bill.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I informed the House at the end of the Committee stage of the Commonwealth Bill, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs, that I was in communication with the Australian colonies through the Australian delegates as to their wishes in regard to the proposed appointment of four additional law Lords, pending the consideration of the question of establishing a Supreme Court for the whole Empire. The delegates had given me to understand that the proposed measure should not be proceeded with, and that Her Majesty's Government should as soon as possible in consultation with the colonies, consider the larger question of a representative supreme tribunal for the whole of Her Majesty's dominions. The delegates placed themselves in communication with the Colonial Premiers in regard to the matter, and I have now received the following telegrams—
  "From Governor Earl Beauchamp.
  "Dated 26th June, 1900.
  "Additional Colonial judicial positions. Prime Minister of New South Wales has been
  272
  in communication with other colonies for some time. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland prefer to wait passing permanent comprehensive measure. No reply received from Tasmania and Western Australia."
  "From Earl Beauchamp.
  "Dated 29th June, 1900.
  "Referring to my telegram of 26th June, additional judicial positions, my Ministers advise that Tasmania and Western Australia prefer permanent scheme."
  In those circumstances, of course, Her Majesty's Government will not proceed with the Bill which they intended to bring in for the purpose of providing four additional Judges; but they will take the earliest opportunity of consulting with the colonies—including, of course, Canada and New Zealand—with regard to the establishment of a permanent Court.

  TOBACCO DUTY—ABANDONMENT OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a deputation, comprising the largest manufacturers in the tobacco trade in Great Britain and Ireland, waited on the Chairman of Inland Revenue to protest against the abandonment of the Budget proposal to limit the use of oil in the manufacture to 3 per cent.; whether he is aware that honest makers, employing only as little oil as necessity demands, are injured by the character and style of their goods being imitated by a product in which as much as 18 per cent. of oil is introduced as an adulterant; and as this practice injures the manufacturer and causes a loss to the revenue to the extent of 6d. to 7d. per pound, would he, if he received an assurance that such a measure would not be objected to, con-sent to reintroduce this session the safe-guards which he originally proposed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): My attention has been called to the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, and although the figures given by him are those of an extreme and, I hope, quite an exceptional case, yet the matter is one of undoubted importance to the interests alike of the revenue, of the consumers of tobacco, and of the tobacco trade. I proposed a clause to deal with the matter while the Finance Act of this year was passing

  273
  through the House, but did not press it, as objection was taken on the ground of insufficient notice to the trade. If I received such an assurance as the hon. and learned Member suggests I should be glad to renew the proposal this session; but, in default of such an assurance, I feel myself bound by the pledge of the Leader of the House against proceeding with any fresh opposed business this year.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman postpone the Bill to enable us to ascertain if there is any really substantial objection?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will consider that.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES—ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that under the Acts with regard to the housing of the working classes as they now stand no debate on the administration of the Acts can now take place on the Estimates of the Local Government Board, except on the narrow question of audit, whether, as the Bill now before the House as amended in Committee renders it doubtful whether such discussion is possible on the Estimates, he will insert on the Report stage provisions under which it may be possible for the administration of these Acts to be discussed annually on the Estimates of the Local Government Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Even if the proposal of my hon. friend were necessary or practicable for the purpose he has in view, I should not be in order in moving clauses on the subject without notice; but I am not aware that there is anything in the Bill to render it doubtful whether a discussion on the administration of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts is possible on the Estimates of the Local Government Board. That, however, is, I think, a matter for the Chairman of Committees to decide.

  LIQUOR LICENCES—BELGRAVE HOTEL, LIVERPOOL.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  274
  Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the transfer of a liquor licence in Liverpool on 21st June, in which the magistrates granted a licence to certain premises known as the Belgrave Hotel, situate in Bryanston Road, St. Michael's, by way of transfer from premises in Renshaw Street, two miles away; whether he is aware that the applicant admitted that he took the latter premises two months, before, solely for the purpose of obtaining a transfer to the Belgrave Hotel; and that a licence for this house had been refused year after year for many years, owing to the opposition of the inhabitants, of the neighbourhood; and seeing that on the same occasion the owners of the-premises known as the Belgrave Hotel offered to surrender six licences which they held, on condition that a transfer-licence was granted to those promises, and actually did so on the licence being granted, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have made inquiry into this case, and find that the facts are correctly stated by the hon. Member. The course taken by the magistrates appears to be within their discretion, with which I have no power to interfere; and I can take no action in the matter.

  WEST SUSSEX POLICE RESERVE SCHEME.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE.: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received an application from the Standing Joint Committee of; the Administrative County of West Sussex for his approval of a scheme for establishing a reserve class of superintendents, sergeants, and constables, consisting of men who, having completed their statutory period of service, are entitled, to retire on a pension under the provisions of the Police Act, 1890, but who are willing to continue in the force if, in so doing, they incur no risk of forfeiting the pensions to which they are entitled for any causes other than those specified in Section 8 of the Police Act; if he is aware of the difficulty which at present exists in finding suitable candidates for police forces, and of the desirability of

  275
  retaining men of good character and of the requisite physical qualifications, who are familiar with the work of police officers, and who are willing to continue their service beyond the statutory period of retirement; and whether, seeing that the desirability of forming a similar class of reserve constables has frequently been brought to his notice, he will state the reason why he has not hitherto seen his way to give his approval to the scheme submitted by the Standing Joint Committee after full consideration of the requirements of the administrative county, and of the best means of meeting them.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I see considerable difficulty in the proposal to create such a reserve class as appears to be contemplated. I am, however, in sympathy with the general object of the proposal, but I think that, in order to carry out any such scheme, some modification of the provisions of the Police Act would be desirable, and this I am not prepared at present to introduce.

  MANCHESTER TELEGRAPHISTS—"SUPERIOR DUTIES."
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, although the Tweedmouth Committee decided that telegraphists performing superior duties for nine months should have duty pay, in order to avoid this concession at Manchester properly qualified senior men have been removed from superior duties and placed under junior officers; and whether the Postmaster General will state whether the rule issued in that town, to the effect that no officer must act in a class above his own sufficiently long enough to claim duty pay, is issued with his knowledge and approval.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): It has been the practice at Manchester so to arrange that the performance by substitutes of the superior duties shall not be unduly prolonged in individual cases. This is done with the view of giving as many officers as possible the opportunity of qualifying, or showing their fitness for promotion. There is no such rule in force at Manchester, or elsewhere, as that indicated in the last
  276
  paragraph of the hon. Member's question; and as matter of fact the allowance for the superior duties has been paid in some cases. There are at the present moment two officers at Manchester who are drawing it.

  POST OFFICE SICK REGULATIONS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the promised rules, regarding temporary transfer to seaside and country offices of officers recovering from serious illness, have been drawn up, and if such transfers will now be allowed.
  MR. HANBURY: As I explained on the 2nd March, 1899, the practice is limited to the following cases:—(1) Officers who have broken down or are in danger of breaking down from overtime performed either compulsorily or in response to a call for volunteers. (2) Cases among such officers of actual or impending illness which can be certified as being due to causes specifically attributable to the nature of the officers' duties.

  DUTIES IN ALDGATE AND E.D. POST OFFICES.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that members of the staff employed at the Aldgate and Eastern District post offices who are engaged upon counter work perform 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., noon to 10 p.m., and 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. duties, and in each case without relief for tea; whether, although a Parliamentary Return, published in 1898, stated that relief was given on the latter duty, the counter clerks are obliged to perform their duties whilst having their meals; and whether the Postmaster General will consent to allow relief to be given to all clerks performing more than eight hours duty.
  MR. HANBURY: It is the case that, in consequence of great pressure of duty at the offices named, no regular period of relief for tea is just now being afforded to the counter staff; but it is recognised that this should be provided for in the case of the officers whose attendance is being prolonged to ten hours; and

  277
  arrangements for the purpose are under consideration. The circumstances do not, in the Postmaster General's opinion, call for an extension of the existing rules touching meal reliefs, hut in special cases additional facilities are afforded as far as possible.

  SCOTTISH SALMON FISHERIES—BLACKSHAW BANK.
  MR. SOUTTAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that five police officers of the county of Dumfries—namely, two inspectors, one sergeant, and two constables—were engaged for three days on the Blackshaw Bank, in the county of Dumfries, in measuring the white fish nets of the fishermen residing in the parish of Carlaverock, and in measuring the sandbanks on which the nets are placed, and in generally surveying the Blackshaw Bank for the purpose of giving evidence on behalf of the owners of the salmon fishings in the district of the river Nith in a civil action of declarator against them by the said fishermen; and that two constables have recently been stationed at Glencaple for the sole purpose of getting up evidence on behalf of the owners of salmon fishings in said action; and whether he will take the necessary steps to put a stop to the salmon owners being allowed to get the services of the police in a civil action with which the police have no concern.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed that the two constables referred to performed the actual work of measurement, and are now stationed at Glencaple for the purpose of inspecting the nets on the direct request of the District Fishery Board, with a view to the preparation of a report to the Board. These two men are not ordinary constables, but are "additional" constables, employed by the police authority at the expense of the District Fishery Boards within the county under an agreement of long standing made in terms of Section 22 of the Salmon Fisheries Act, 1862, which gives specific power to district boards to "agree with the police committee of any county for the purpose of paying additional constables for the better, protection of the fisheries in their district." So far, therefore, as these men are concerned, the proceedings seem to have been perfectly regular. The two constables were accom-
  278
  panied by the senior officer of their respective divisions, and by a sergeant with local knowledge, these three officers being ordinary members of the police force. The Secretary for Scotland has frequently expressed his disapproval of the police being engaged in other than proper police duties. In the present case he has asked for the observations of the Standing Joint Committee on the practice to which his attention has been directed.

  GREENOCK RATE COLLECTION.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the action of the rate collector of Greenock in refusing to receive the poor rate unless the school rate was paid at the same time, is according to the usual practice; and, if not, will he have the matter looked into.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that the collector accepts payment of the poor rate although unaccompanied by the school rate during the ordinary progress of his collection but that, acting upon the opinion of his law agent, when a warrant is obtained and handed to an officer to be put into execution, the collector requires the payment of both rates. The Board consider that in so acting he follows a proper course.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: But is it legal?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I shall be happy to look into that point, and will then give my opinion.

  CLONES POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the intention of the Department to erect a post office at Clones has been abandoned; and, if not, can he explain the reason why the work is not proceeded with; and can he say has the same decision been taken in the case of Monaghan; and, if not, why have no steps been taken to rebuild the post office there.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has not abandoned his intention to provide new post offices at Clones and

  279
  Monaghan as soon as suitable schemes can be put forward. At Clones a site in The Diamond is now under consideration. At Monaghan a site in Church Square is under consideration.

  CASTLEBAR POST OFFICE.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what progress has been made with regard to the erection of a post office in Castlebar, county Mayo, the site for which has been purchased a considerable time.
  MR. HANBURY: A site for a new Post Office at Castlebar has not yet been purchased, but a proposal for the acquisition of a site and the erection of a building has just been received at the Treasury.

  DERRY CENTRAL RAILWAY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company has given notice that they will not continue the working agreement with the Derry Central Railway Company expiring in February next; will he state whether the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company have opened negotiations with the Treasury to procure to themselves a forced sale of the Derry Central line on foot of the mortgage debt due to the Treasury by the Derry Central Railway Company; is he aware that such a sale, if carried out, would tend to destroy competition in the district; and that complaints have been made of the Deny Central Railway Company; and that there is a feeling in the districts served against the management of the Derry Central line by the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company under their working agreement; will the Treasury give reasonable opportunities to enable the Derry Central Railway Company to arrange with other companies for the working of their line when the agreement expires, and not exercise the power of sale; and will he, in accordance with the policy announced by him in 1895, give a pledge that no sale of this line to the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company shall be carried out without full notice and free competition.
  MR. HANBURY: The statements in the first two paragraphs are substantially correct. But the Belfast and Northern Counties Company, while refusing to continue the working of the line for another year on existing terms, have not refused altogether to continue it. I have given the Derry Central Company an opportunity of making a counter-offer, and I shall be glad to consider any offer from other quarters. I am aware of the local feeling against the present arrangement. I am considering how far it would apply to the working of the line by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company as part of their own system, and whether effective competition can be expected in this district under any arrangement.

  CORK AND WATERFORD TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether continual delays are caused in the use of the trunk telephone between Cork and Waterford, owing to its passing through Dublin; and whether it is proposed that this arrangement for telephonic communication via Dublin is to be a permanent one.
  MR. HANBURY: A return of the trunk wire messages between Cork and Waterford for the months of May and June shows that the average time occupied from the receipt of the calls at the post offices until the subscribers were put into communication with one another was slightly less than ten minutes. The number of messages was less than one a day, and the provision of a direct line between the two places does not appear to be justified at present. In the two months the actual number of messages in both directions was thirty, and the average time occupied 9.9 minutes.

  LISTOWEL TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that inconvenience and loss of time and money is caused owing to the fact that telegrams cannot be sent direct from Tralee to Listowel, a distance of only twenty miles, but have to be sent viâ Mallow, Cork, and Limerick, a distance of

  281
  about 200 miles; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused by the present circuitous route, steps will be taken to provide direct communication between Listowel and Tralee.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that inconvenience and loss of time and money have been caused through the present mode of transmission of telegrams between Tralee and Listowel, but he will have inquiry made and will see whether any improvement can be effected.

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE—FEMALE CLERKS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether female clerks in the Post Office, Dublin, forfeit £10 a year in salary on being transferred from London, their hours and duties being equal with their colleagues there; whether men clerks are subject to any similar deduction; and whether he can explain the reason for this exceptional treatment of Irish female clerks.
  MR. HANBURY: The maximum of the Dublin scale is £10 less than the maximum of the London scale; and women clerks who are transferred (at their own request) from London to Dublin and are in receipt of pay in excess of the Dublin maximum sustain a loss to the extent of such excess. Men clerks would be treated in the same way under similar circumstances.

  IRISH POOR LAW HOSPITALS—INSPECTION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that union general hospitals and union fever hospitals in Ireland are inspected and reported upon by lay inspectors, and can he state what qualifications these gentlemen possess for the discharge of this duty; is he aware that the Irish Workhouse Reform Association and the Irish Medical Association strongly recommended that those hospitals should be inspected by professional men; and will he see that effect is given to those recommendations.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The inspection of workhouses in Ireland, as in England, is under the general inspectors, who report on the state of the buildings, the cleanliness, order, discipline, the keeping of the books, the finance, and the compliance with the general regulations by the several officers in every department, including the hospital wards. It would not be practicable to exclude these wards from the general inspectors' authority, but when any questions as to medical treat- merit arise, or where any inquiry has to be held wherein medical knowledge is required, a medical inspector makes a special inspection or holds any inquiry on oath that may be necessary. The question of assigning this work to a special medical inspector appointed for the purpose is under consideration.

  COUNTY MONAGHAN WORKHOUSES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Council of Monaghan recently passed a resolution in favour of the amalgamation of workhouses; and whether he will direct the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry in the county of Monaghan with a view of ascertaining what workhouses might be closed there.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The resolution referred to has been received. The Local Government Board are in communication with the county council on the subject.

  FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a number of applications to have fair rents fixed in the Bantry and Castletown Berehaven unions have been postponed one year and a half ago in order that the revising officers of these unions may revise the valuations; and what is the cause of the delay in connection with them.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: In twenty-five cases from the Union of Castletown-Bere applications to fix fair rents were adjourned in January last, as it appeared that in each of them there was no separate tenement valuation for the lands which were the subject of the fair rent pro-

  283
  ceedings. In these cases a revision of I the valuation was necessary to enable the Court to comply with the provisions of Section 55 of the Local Government Act of 1898. The necessary revision will be made by the Commissioner of Valuation during the present year. There are no cases of this kind now pending in the Bantry district.

  ORANGE CELEBRATIONS AT DOWN-PATRICK.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a letter from the Deputy District Master of the Orangemen of Lecale, residing in Downpatrick, repudiating the statement that it has been the ordinary practice to prevent the Orangemen walking through Irish Street; whether he is aware that they have been in the habit of going through Irish Street, Downpatrick, every 12th of July, and that on Pretoria Day the street was decorated with loyal flags and illuminated; and will he explain why the demonstration, which was composed of loyalists of all classes, was prohibited by the police from manifesting their joy at the success of the British arms in South Africa.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Apart from the statement of the Deputy District Master, the information before me is to the effect that the Orangemen have not been in the habit of marching through Irish Street every 12th July. Last year, it is true, they did so, but this was the only occasion for a number of years past on which they passed through the thoroughfare. Irish Street was partially decorated on the 5th June. I need hardly say there is no foundation whatever for the statement in the last paragraph.
  MR. FLAVIN: When did the Irish people adopt Pretoria Day as a national holiday? Is there any authority for it?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  IRISH CONSTABULARY AT HOLY-HEAD.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether two mem-
  284
  bers of the Royal Irish Constabulary are stationed at Holy head; and, if so, with what object; and, will he state what they are paid, and whether the cost of maintaining them at Holyhead is thrown upon Ireland.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Only one member of the constabulary is stationed at Holyhead. He is engaged on ordinary police and detective duty, which includes the arrest of absconding criminals, the detention of stolen property, and the various other duties incidental to an important port in constant communication with Ireland. His pay and allowances, which are at the usual rate, are paid from the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Are any British policemen stationed in Ireland, and paid for out of the Irish funds?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not see how that could be.

  R. I. C.—RECRUITING FOR SOUTH AFRICAN SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Royal Irish Constabulary recruits are being raised and trained for police service in South Africa; and, if so, out of what fund is the cost taken.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to this question is in the negative.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And do I understand they will not be so trained?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Yes.

  RELIGIOUS SERVICES AT ARKLOW.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Rev. Mr. Hallowes in insisting, upon conducting a Protestant service close to a public meeting in Arklow on Sunday, the 24th of June; whether he is aware that the rev. gentleman had been warned beforehand that his action would be likely to cause a broach of the peace, and that he was permitted by the inspector in charge to carry on his proceedings at the police barrack while the

  285
  meeting was being held, to the annoyance of the public and to the Catholic members of the force; and whether the Irish Government will take steps to protect the people of Arklow from such practices of the Rev. Mr. Hallowes.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the proceedings at Arklow on Sunday, the 24th June. The rev. gentleman had previously been re quested by the police not to sing or preach while passing the meeting referred to. Notwithstanding this, however, he did march through the streets and close up to the meeting, his followers singing the while. A breach of the peace being imminent, the police moved him and his party, for their own safety, to the barrack square, in which they continued to carry on their service free from interference and where neither the public nor the police were affected by it. The police had a difficult duty to discharge on the occasion, and they discharged it with tact and efficiency.
  *MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the character of the meeting?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It was called during the time divine service is usually held.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Have Catholic clergymen ever disturbed Protestant meetings in this disreputable manner?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

  IRISH TEACHERS' RESULT FEES.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the amount of the deficit in the results for the year 1899 in District 58; and what effect such deficit will have on the future income of this district.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This question will be brought before the Commissioners at their meeting to-morrow. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it on Thursday.

  NATIONAL TEACHERS IN WORK HOUSE SCHOOLS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  286
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the changes proposed to be introduced in the methods by which national teachers are paid any provision will be made for national teachers in workhouse schools; whether he is aware that many boards of guardians have hitherto made to their teachers a payment corresponding to the results fees in. ordinary schools, and that the National Board of Education has assisted the guardians to establish this method of payment by requiring their inspectors to report on the answering of the individual pupils in the workhouse schools in the same manner as in ordinary schools; and whether, as this will in future be no part of the duties of the inspectors, and it will therefore not be possible for the guardians to continue to pay results fees, some provision will be made to prevent the workhouse teachers suffering loss by the proposed change.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This matter has already been considered by the Local Government Board on a resolution passed by the board of guardians of Limerick Union proposing that the teachers of workhouse schools who have hitherto been paid results fees from the rates should be given increments to their annual salaries to compensate them for any loss arising from the abolition of the results system. The Local Government Board informed the guardians that they do not consider that a fixed increment to the salaries of the teachers in workhouse schools should be made by the board of guardians in lieu of the results fees hitherto given from the rates upon the certificate of the Board of National Education, but that they would be prepared to consent to a bonus equal to the average of the past three years results fees being given to the teachers after each examination if the report of the inspector upon the school was in every respect satisfactory.

  RATHKEALE QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the action tried at quarter sessions in Rathkeale, on 15th June, in which Laurence Hartnett sued Head Constable Hyland, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for false arrest and

  287
  imprisonment, and obtained a verdict of £20 damages; whether he is aware that the learned county court judge in charging the jury commented on the conduct of the head constable in dragging the plaintiff out of bed, handcuffing him, and marching him off to prison, although there was no evidence against him; and whether it is proposed that the costs of this action and the damages in which this head constable has been mulcted be paid out of the public funds, or that the head constable be recouped from the public funds for these costs and damages.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs, except that it is not true that the judge stated there was no evidence against the plaintiff. I may observe, however, that the judge has since written to the Inspector General stating "that although the defendant may have been technically wrong he acted absolutely right in the interests of justice and order. He arrested one who he had full reason to believe had committed an outrageous Whiteboy crime in a rather disturbed district. I would most earnestly recommend and pray that the State will see this first-class officer harmless from all pecuniary loss and otherwise." The head constable, having lodged an appeal to the assizes, the question referred to in the last paragraph will not be considered until the case has been disposed of.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION AS MEDIATORS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission on being applied to by a former tenant to act as mediators under Section 47 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the usual statutory notice of such application having been served by the said Commission upon the landlord, and he having failed to give notice within the prescribed time of his objection to such application, have power to extend the time allowed for lodging such objection; and whether the landlord, being prevented by disability from lodging his objection, it is competent for another person to do so on his behalf.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is not possible to answer this question upon the information given; if, however, the hon.
  288
  Member will furnish me with the names of the parties to the proceedings mentioned I will endeavour to have the case identified.

  IMPRISONMENT OF SYLVESTER DWYER.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Sylvester Dwyer is at present undergoing a sentence of eighteen years in Maryborough Prison; whether he can state for how long Sylvester Dwyer has been in prison; and whether, in view of the feeling that exists in Dwyer's innocence and of his long imprisonment, steps will be taken for his release.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The case of this convict was considered by the Lords Justices so recently as the 18th June, when it was decided that the law should take its course. He will have completed thirteen years of his sentence on the 14th instant, and will be eligible for release in the ordinary course in January of next year.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the law did not take its course in the case of Lord Kenmare's bailiff, who only did eighteen months out of twenty years?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury for information as to the course of business, and especially as to the class of Estimates that will be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards tomorrow, we begin Committee on the Tithes Bill, and I imagine that will not be concluded the same evening. On Friday I propose to take the Scotch Estimates which I had intended to take last Friday.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the Vote for the House of Lords Offices be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can give no pledge as to that.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Admiralty Vote for Propelling Machinery will be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer at present, but I hope to be able to take the Vote on Friday week.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately when the remaining Irish Estimates will be taken, and whether the new rules of the Board of Primary Education in Ireland will be published before the Irish Education Vote is taken; and whether he can see his way to arrange that the Second Reading of the Irish Primary Education Bill and the Irish Intermediate Education Bill will be taken during the same week as the Irish Estimates.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the suggestion of the hon. Member will be acted upon, and the rules will be published in a separate Paper, which I trust will be in the hands of hon. Members before the Education Vote is taken. As regards the second paragraph, I will endeavour to meet the convenience of the hon. Members, but I am not at present in a position to give an absolute pledge.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately when the new rules will be laid on the Table?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Very soon, I hope, but they are not yet in their final form.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: They ought to be in the hands of hon. Members some few days before the Vote is taken.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Central Chamber of Agriculture have called a special meeting of the council to consider the amended form of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, he will defer the Report stage of the Bill until
290
the House has the advantage of any further suggestions from the chambers.
MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to reply that this was not possible.

POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 248.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 248.]
Bill, as amended, recommitted to a Committee of the whole House for Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 274.]

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 275.]
RESERVE FORCES BILL [Lords.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]
NEW BILL.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS.
  Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to local loans, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  "To grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to local loans," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended, considered.
*MR. SPEAKER: The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Islington is out of order. The

291
Bill is a Bill to amend Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, but he proposes to amend the whole Act and also to alter the incidence of taxation, which cannot be done at this stage.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name, and I do so with the object introducing into this Bill some means by which it may be possible to obtain enforcement of the provisions of the Act in many rural districts where it is now neglected. In drawing up the Amendment I have carefully followed the wording of the Act of 1890, although I have introduced some slight modification in the last portion of the clause, so as to give to the medical officer and ratepayers, under certain circumstances, power to call the attention of the central authority to the neglect to put the Act in force. I think this is necessary, because, as the right hon. Gentleman has shown us on more than one occasion, although very large powers exist, there is no provision whatever to secure their enforcement, and they are indeed seldom if ever put in force in many districts where we have a scandalous condition of housing in existence. Bad housing is consequently allowed to go on to the detriment of the health of the locality and of the morals of the people. If this Bill is to become operative, if it is to have greater force than the Act of 1890, we must strengthen it in some way and give someone the power of drawing the attention of the local authorities to their default in carrying out the intentions of the Legislature. I believe that in a question like this affecting the public health no more suitable officer could be found to undertake this duty than the medical officer of health, and although in many rural districts such an officer holds his position on a very insecure tenure, and is only too often paid a comparatively small salary for the performance of very responsible duties, I am sure the House will feel that he is the proper official to discharge this task. I am quite aware that while the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may be willing to accept the first and second portions of my clause, he may object to the third, on the ground that it brings in the interference of the Local Government Board. In order to meet that objection I would suggest that the enforcing
292
authority should be the county council, and I have no objection whatever to the county council being substituted for the Local Government Board in the third portion of this clause, so that the provision will then run that, upon representations made by not less than four householders to the medical officer of health for the district to the effect that the conditions of housing then existing are dangerous to the public health, the medical officer shall inspect and report, and the county council shall take steps to see that the Act is put in force in the event of the necessary action not being taken by the local authority. I believe that some such provision would make the Act more efficient. I do not think we can too strongly deplore the impotence of the Act of 1890, seeing that in most rural districts it has had no effect whatever in improving the housing of the agricultural poor. It is in order to ensure that the local authority in such districts shall do its duty that I propose this clause, and I repeat that I think the county council may wisely and properly be introduced as the enforcing authority.
New clause—
"(1) It shall be the duty of the medical officer of health of every rural sanitary district to represent to the local authority of that district any parish or other area within that district where danger arises to the health of the inhabitants of such parish or area from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply of lodging-houses for the working classes.
"(2) If in any rural sanitary district any four or more householders living in or near to any parish or other area in such district complain in writing to the medical officer of health of that district that danger arises to the health of the inhabitants of such parish or area, or of such district, from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply of lodging-houses for the working classes in such parish or area, he shall forthwith inspect the same, and transmit to the local authority the said complaint arid his opinion thereon; and, if he is of opinion that danger does arise as aforesaid, shall represent such parish or area to the local authority; but the absence of any such complaint shall not excuse him from the duty of making a representation under Subsection 1 of this section where necessary.
"(3) If within three months after receiving the said complaint and opinion or representation of the medical officer, the local authority declines or neglects to take any proceedings to put this part of the Act in force, the householders who signed such complaint may petition the Local Government Board for an inquiry, and the said Board, after causing an

293
inquiry to be held, may order the local authority to proceed under this part of this Act, and such order shall be binding on the local authority."—(Sir Walter Foster.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The clause of my hon. friend is divided into three parts, and as to the first two I have, as he has said, no objection whatever, although, in my opinion, it is altogether unnecessary, for I am advised, and indeed I am satisfied, that, with one exception, everything proposed to be done in. those two paragraphs of the clause can be done under the existing law. The hon. Member gave, as I think, a somewhat curious reason for this clause. He said that the local authorities had undoubtedly got very great and extensive powers already, but they do not use them, and therefore he would give them more power. I do not quite follow him in that.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: No; I said I would give the medical officer of health and the ratepayers more power.
MR. CHAPLIN: I certainly thought the hon. Member said he would give the local authorities more power. With regard to the position of the medical officer of health, that is a question to which I undoubtedly attach very great importance. But I do not think you would improve his position by the insertion of this clause, and the Committee will have to consider very carefully the fact that he must be placed in a very different position altogether from that which he now occupies if you mean him to be a really efficient official with regard to the housing of the working classes. Everything suggested in the clause can be done under the existing law, with one exception, and that is where the medical officer of health is, called upon to report on the insufficiency of lodging-houses for the working classes; and even as regards such insufficiency, if it be shown to arise either from the unwholesomeness or overcrowding of dwellings, then it is his duty at present to report. But if there is an insufficiency of houses as apart from over-
294
crowding, that, I submit, is not a matter for the medical officer of health, who would not be the most appropriate authority to deal with it. The third section of the proposed clause states that under certain circumstances the Local Government Board should be brought in to coerce the recalcitrant local authorities.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I said I was prepared to substitute the county councils.
MR. CHAPLIN: I have considered the clause very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that if pressure of this kind is to be brought to bear it would be bettor that it should be brought to bear by the county councils rather than by the Local Government Board. The county councils are representative bodies, with local knowledge which the Local Government Board cannot possess in the same degree. What I propose to do, therefore, is not to accept the proposal of the hon. Member, but to accept with some Amendments the clause of the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division, as was suggested to me the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. I think, with some Amendments, that clause would very satisfactorily answer the purpose in view.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. SPEAKER: The next two clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Shields are not in order. They are both outside the scope of the present Bill.
MR. STEADMAN: In rising to move the clause which stands in my name, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government will give it a little more consideration than he did last week, when he described it as a harum-scarum proposal. I am not a lawyer, but I give way to no Member of this House in my desire to see better accommodation for the working classes of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman had really any sympathy with the question or a desire to do something in the right direction he would, instead of ridiculing my humble clause, avail himself of the assistance placed at his disposal, which I have not at mine, to draft it into proper shape. I consider this clause

295
one of the most important that has so far been moved in connection with this Bill, because it touches the very root of the evil under which the working classes are now suffering, and that is the question of the land. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the county councils and other local authorities have already got this power and that power, and that they are now to be given power to enable them to purchase land outside their own areas, but after all it is the landowner we have got to deal with. He is the most important person to consider, and we have not taken into consideration at all what he requires for his land. The London County Council have purchased six sites under Part III. of the Act at a total cost of £96,000. Two of these sites, including the Millbank site, which was Government property, and therefore paid no rates at all, cost the Council £37,500. The largest site purchased, Totterdown Fields, Tooting, with an area of 38½ acres, cost £45,000, and it is proposed to house something like 12,000 persons on it. That site is agricultural land, and if it were purchased at its agricultural value the price, instead of working out at over £1,100 per acre, would work out at about £40. It paid rates on its agricultural value, but immediately the London Count Council proceeded to purchase it the owner would not sell it at that value, but required its full market value for building purposes. The result is that the Council had to pay an enormous price for this land, which, I maintain, should have been purchased on its assessable value as agricultural land, and not upon its value for building purposes, for which it was not assessed at all. I know this Amendment touches the vital system of the taxation of ground values. Vacant land at present has no assessment, and, therefore, pays no taxation. In some of the improvement schemes carried out by the London County Council a part of the site had to be left vacant, because it was too small for the Council to build on owing to the restrictions imposed by the Local Government Board and the Home Office, It is impossible for a municipality to build on a small plot of land even if it only desires to cover expenses and not to make a profit. I am anxious to see municipalities build houses for the working classes without loss to the ratepayers. The rateable value of these sites now
296
vacant would be £2,683 per annum, if buildings were placed upon them, and the total cost to the London County Council, because they were kept vacant, was £5,378 up to the 31st March, 1899. If all vacant land was assessed, and paid rates upon its full market value, it would have the effect of bringing into the market a large amount of land suitable for building purposes. If used as agricultural land it would be taxed upon the basis of its market value, not for agricultural, but for building purposes. Therefore it would be no longer to the interest of the landlord to hold it back as he does at the present time. We are paying as ground rent to-day a hundred times as much as the agricultural value of the site, as the value of the land, especially in the city, or the near vicinity of the city, is increased through the industry of the people, and not from any merit of the landlord himself. The more the people by their industry increase the value of his land the more the landlord makes the local authority pay for it. Now, in fixing twenty-five years purchase as a basis, I think I have acted very fairly even to the landlords. I was for over twelve months chairman of the Investments Committee of the Hearts of Oak Society, and on many occasions we could invest our money in ground rents at as low as eighteen years purchase. I admit that the value has gone up since that time, but that has been through the industry of the people. It is a well-known fact that if the vacant land is allowed to go un-assessed and paying no rates the landlord is encouraged to hold the land vacant until the time arrives when he can get the highest price for it. The Government might bring in a dozen Bills, but no Bill will solve this problem in a satisfactory manner unless the Government are prepared to deal with the owners of the vacant land, and compel them to sell it at a fair market value to municipalities for the erection of improved houses for the working classes.
New clause—
" For the purposes of Part 3 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. 1890, a local authority may acquire vacant land compulsorily at a price equal to twenty-live years purchase of the annual value as assessed for taxation."—(Mr. Steadman.)
—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. CHAPLIN: I am sure I am very sorry if anything I said in the course of the debate the other day was at all distasteful to my hon. friend. I think I would like to withdraw the expression "harum-scarum clause," I then used, and substitute for it "the most un workman like clause I ever saw in my life." I really cannot say very much more to-day than on the previous occasion about this clause. At the present moment, under a Provisional Order, confirmed by Parliament, the price of the land is fixed by arbitration if there has been no previous agreement. I do not quite understand what really the desire is of the hon. Member. In one breath he says that all he wants is that the land should be sold at a fair market value. That means what the arbitrators would decide is the price to be paid for it. But in the next breath the hon. Member goes a good deal further. He assumes the rôle of general arbitrator, and decides that, in the purchase of land, no matter of what kind, or where situated, and utterly regardless of all the surrounding circumstances, he would never give more than twenty-five years purchase of the assessable value, whatever he means by that—and I do not propose to inquire. The hon. Member says that this is to apply to vacant land, by which he means land not built upon. Let us see what his proposal may involve. It may inflict the greatest possible hardship. Take the case of a hard-working, industrious man, who perhaps has sprung from nothing, and by his industry has made a fortune which he has invested in land near a town, or perhaps just beyond the boundary. That land is vacant because it is not built upon, and he has given fifty years purchase for it, exactly its fair market value. Now comes the occasion when, under the clause in this Bill which enables local authorities to go beyond their boundaries to acquire land for the purpose of housing the working classes, this man's land is to be purchased by the local authority. The hon. Member will not leave the value of that land to be fixed by an arbitrator. It is to be laid down by Act of Parliament that under no circumstances is the owner to get more than twenty-five years purchase for what he has paid fifty years purchase. I am quite certain that the hon. Member will see,
298
when he looks at it in this way, that the clause will not hold water. I desire as much as anyone the cheapening of land for this great national purpose; but is it right or fair or just to penalise one particular class for that purpose, and throw upon them the heaviest part of the burden, because they happen to be owners of the vacant land? It seems to me that the clause cannot bear argument for a single moment.
Question put, and negatived.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The new clause I rise to move is one which the right hon. Gentleman has said he is willing to accept for the reasons he has stated. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman, for the very courteous manner in which he has met the views of those on this side of the House who are anxious to see this Amendment adopted in one form or another. I am very glad that the new clause meets the views of my right hon. friend who was President of the Local Government Board in the last Government. The clause has been modelled, as far as possible, on Clause 16 of the Local Government Act of 1893–4. I have accepted a valuable Amendment suggested to me by the President of the Local Government Board——
*MR. SPEAKER: A new clause can only be moved after notice has been given. If. the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman are agreed that this is substantially the same clause as appears on the Paper I will not interfere; otherwise it should be moved as on the Paper, and then amended by Amendments.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I understood that the clause had been already placed before you, Mr. Speaker; and I thought that the authorities were satisfied that it was substantially identical with that which originally appeared on the Paper.
MR. CHAPLIN: So far as my reading of the clause is concerned, having very carefully considered it, I think it is precisely to the same effect as that which the noble Lord had originally on the Paper. But if desired the latter can be amended, by Amendment.
*MR. SPEAKER: It is quite unnecessary if it is agreed that it is to the same effect.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Then I beg to move, Sir.
New clause—
"The council of any administrative county where a parish council resolve that a rural district council ought to have taken steps for the adoption of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, or to have exercised their powers under that part, and have failed to do so, the parish council may complain to the county council, and the county council, if satisfied after due inquiry that the district council have so failed, may resolve that the powers of the district council for the purposes of that part shall he transferred to the county council with respect to the parish, and they shall be transferred accordingly, and the resolution shall, if necessary, have effect as an adoption of that part by the district council, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, Section 63 of the Local Government Act, 1894, shall apply as if the powers had been transferred under that Act."—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)
—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted this clause, because it concedes the principle for which I have contended in the Committee stage as well as in the new clause moved to-day. The clause of my noble friend is based on one contained in the Local Government Act of 1894 which has been found to work very satisfactorily in many county councils when put in force in relation to other matters. I hope that the powers conferred by this Bill may be made more operative by this new clause.
*SIR F. S. POWELL: When this Bill was before the Committee I objected to giving such power to the central authority on grounds I then stated; but these objections do not apply to the county council. My experiences of the county councils—although not a member of any—both in the West Riding and in Lancashire are of the most encouraging character. They are nearer the locality than the central Government can be; and they have the further advantage of representing the people. In fact, it is one popular authority controlling another popular authority. I am sure
300
that difficulties which have arisen between the central authority and the local authority will not obtain in dealing with the county council. I welcome most heartily this clause, and I am sure the Bill, strengthened by this clause, will work a reform of great importance.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, if the county council were to adopt this section, and put into force the powers of Part 3 in the area of any rural sanitary authority or parish council, the cost, if any, would be made a charge on the county rate or fixed on the rural or sanitary authority? If the cost were charged on the county rate it might be unfair to the other district councils.
MR. CHAPLIN: This clause only applies in the case of a rural district council; and then only where it has been resolved by the parish council that the rural district council had failed in their duty in not adopting Part III. of the Act; or if they had adopted it, had failed in their duty to put it into force. Under those circumstances the County Council would be able to take over to itself the powers of the rural district council for housing the working classes, and to carry out the necessary works. The charge would be paid by the defaulting rural council.
Clause added.
*MR. CHANNING: If the President of the Board of Trade were here he would recall that the principle of the clause I wish to move was repeatedly argued both in the House and in the Committee upstairs, during the discussions on the Act of 1890. If there was force in the arguments for it in 1890, it is redoubled now, owing to the enormous and vital importance of dealing with overcrowding. Twenty years ago the question of housing was one rather of sanitation than of overcrowding; but every year since has tended to make the question turn upon the issue of overcrowding and to the aggravation and intensification of the evils of overcrowding. In view of the present circumstances it would be unreasonable to the teeming

301
multitudes in our great towns, for whom we wish to find some outlet under the provisions of this Bill, if we did not apply the same reasoning and the same arguments to the re-housing of the people under Part 3, as amended by this Bill, that were applicable in former Bills to the question of insanitary areas and the pulling down of unhealthy habitations. Hon. Members are perfectly aware that the principle of excluding extra compensation in respect of compulsory purchase of insanitary areas and houses is applied to Parts 1 and 2 of the principal Act. What we wish is that, where you go outside the area of a district to carry out the purposes of Part 3, you should not be compelled to pay the enormous prices often demanded for land taken compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Acts. We had, on the second reading of this Bill, a most valuable discussion of the enormous enhancement in the value of suburban land that is sure to arise from the operations of county councils and other local authorities in going outside their own areas to compete for land for housing the working classes; what I am arguing now is that we should have the same principles applied to the outside land, as taken for a national and vital purpose, as are applied to land taken for dealing with insanitary areas and unhealthy houses. The evidence given by the Secretary for the Colonies, before the Housing Commission in 1884, was of the utmost importance on this point. He argued that the owner should obtain the fair market value at the time as between a willing seller and a willing buyer, and nothing more. "In practice they have succeeded in getting a great deal more." The Colonial Secretary also points out that "wherever an area was condemned as insanitary, all the owners within the area became subject to the terms of the Act, and their property, whether insanitary or not, could be acquired subject to no additional compensation in respect of compulsory purchase." That is a very strong argument for applying a similar principle to the purchase of land for the purposes of this Bill. In another reply to Lord Salisbury, the right hon. Gentleman said that in Birmingham they had two districts, one of which was an insanitary area, which they were providing a scheme to deal with, and another district called the improvement district,
302
and it was there that they had to pay the 10 per cent. extra.
"I say," said the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, 'that an owner in the improvement district should make the same sacrifice as the owners who were doing their duty in the insanitary area had to make for the public good; that is to say, they should be content with the full and fair value of their property, without this excessive additional sum, often much more than 10 per cent."
The right hon. Gentleman continues with the argument that owners would not suffer by the application of this principle to them in the improvement area he referred to; and by analogy the argument is good in the present Bill. Asked by Lord Salisbury whether hardship to the owner might not arise, and unpopularity for the scheme, he replied—
"I do not think that under any scheme that could be arranged the owners would be badly off. They would always get more than they would themselves value their property at, supposing no scheme were in existence. Therefore, I do not think a scheme would be unpopular with the owners; it would be more unpopular with the ratepayers."
He gave illustrations as to how this extra 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase operated in Birmingham, and pointed out that where a man had bought real estate three years previously for £2,500, the corporation had to give him,£6,000 for the same land in compulsory purchase under the Lands Clauses Act. My hon. friend the Member for Stepney, in moving his new clause, with the object of which I have the greatest sympathy, conclusively showed that the owners of the building land in the vicinity of great towns are perhaps the most favoured men with regard to taxation. They are assessed for the poor rate at the annual agricultural value of their land, which means that if you compare the agricultural value with the real capital value of the land, which they could command in the market at Token-house Yard, and if they were taxed on anything like that real value, they are clearly being let off an enormous proportion of the share which they really ought to be paying for the purposes of local taxation. I do not wish to labour that point, except with regard to the particular argument before the Committee; but what does it mean? We know that the capital value of building land is from twenty to fifty, and sometimes 100 times the agricultural value of the land, and these owners have been

303
receiving from the community for years an enormous bonus, by reason of the fact that the community and Parliament have not taxed their land at its capital value. I ask whether it is reasonable that these owners who have received these large bonuses should ask for this further concession upon the compulsory purchase of their land. We know very well that the moment county councils and local authorities go outside their own area to acquire land, that land immediately increases in value. The owners thus are certain to get, in any case, vastly more for their land than they otherwise would. And then these very owners have had this bonus in exemption from fair taxation for years past; and, further, this bonus has been doubled by the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in passing the Agricultural Rating Act. In dealing with this problem of the re-housing of the working classes, to prevent overcrowding, which I place even above sanitation, I think the community have a right to acquire this land at its fair value, and no more. We do not want to pay these owners less than the fair value of their land, but we do not want to pay them more, because landowners on the borders of great and growing towns have for years past been the favourites of fortune, and it is only reasonable they should to a small extent share in the sacrifices for these reforms.
New clause—
"Where land is acquired under this Act otherwise than by agreement no additional compensation shall be given to the vendor in respect of compulsory purchase of such land."—(Mr. Channing.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*MR. MCLAREN: The argument of my hon. friend who introduced this clause has covered a rather wide ground, but it is a ground which we who sit on this side of the House have for years felt requires to be dealt with by some attempt at legislation. Whether we sit here as the representatives of local bodies anxious to acquire land for public purposes, or whether we sit here as the directors of public companies which have to acquire, as railway
304
companies do, areas of land compulsorily, we always feel that there is something wrong in a system which allows those who promote schemes for the public benefit to be practically fined 10 per cent. upon the ascertained value of the land which they require for their purposes. My hon. friend attempts by this clause to strike out what I should call the 10 per cent. fine. I do not understand that he proposes to carry the matter further than that, or that he intends to be as revolutionary in his proposals as the hon. Member for Stepney, or to suggest that any landowner should get a penny less than the fair value of the land which he is called upon to part with; but he does say this: that where a person comes to an owner to acquire land upon which to build houses for the poor of the town it is only fair that the owner should give up his land for that purpose, and not ask any more for it than its fair value. I believe that this 10 per cent. is not a creation of a statute; that there is no Act of Parliament which provides that it shall be added to the price of any land which is purchased compulsorily. It is pure custom created by surveyors and legal persons during the growth of railways, and when the Committee is considering a question of philanthropy as well as of figures it is not unreasonable to say that a stop should be put to an arbitrary rule of this character. Take the case of a railway company. The land it seeks to acquire is agricultural land, and has no building value, and if the landowner sits on that land for half a generation he would not receive more for it than its fair value; but a railway comes; along, takes some of the land and puts up buildings, and it at once attracts other builders, so that, so far from the owner being injured by his land being taken away, he is actually benefited. He not only gets rid of the land he parts with at its true value, but the rest of his land goes up in price. The same argument applies with greater force to municipal enterprise. Under these circumstances I think we ought to got rid of this 10 percent.
MR. CHAPLIN: This question was raised in Committee, and the hon. Member pressed it to a division, when the Committee decided by a large majority to reject his proposal, and I see no reason why I should accept the proposal on this

305
occasion. I do not think the hon. Member has brought forward any additional reasons which should cause me to do so. The hon. Gentleman must remember that when land is taken under compulsory powers the 10 per cent. is not a matter of course—it is left to the discretion of the arbitrator to say what he considers is the fair value of the land, which hon. Gentlemen opposite are agreed is what ought to be given, and he usually gives 10 per cent. compensation for the compulsory purchase. It may be that the owner may consider that the land which he has to part with, when used for the purposes for which it is acquired, will be very detrimental to the property which he is left with, and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, 10 per cent. is not, I think, unfair. The hon. Member founded his argument to a great extent upon the cases that occur in Parts I. and II. of the Bill, but those are not at all analogous to any case under which land could be taken under Part III., because in Parts I. and II. different circumstances arise; the areas there are taken over because they are insanitary.
*MR. CHANNING: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment here? My argument is that under Part I. the 10 per cent. is not allowed in respect of property which in itself is perfectly sanitary.
MR. CHAPLIN: But in those areas which are so taken over there are insanitary areas. The land which is taken under Part III has never been an insanitary area. In the first place it is taken for the purpose of building houses upon, and it has not been built on before, and I cannot see on what ground the owner of that particular property which is to be used for a particular purpose is to be prevented from enjoying the same privilege that is extended to other land-owners when their land is taken away. I have always acknowledged the importance of this particular question, but I have not heard a word of explanation tonight why one particular class is to be selected to pay a heavier burden than other classes of the community. We ought, in my opinion, to preserve to these people the same rights and privileges that we extend to other classes, and all that I ask is that in these cases, as in all others, it should be left to the unfettered
306
decision of the arbitrator to fix the price to be paid for these properties, and to say whether, in taking these properties over, there are exceptional circumstances which justify him in awarding an additional 10 per cent. as compensation for compulsory purchase.
*SIR HENRY FOWLER: When listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the arguments which he used my memory went back to six years ago and the passing of the Local Government Acts for England and Ireland. On those occasions I heard precisely the same arguments—I have no doubt from the right hon. Gentleman himself—but they did not convince the House of Commons or the House of Lords in the case of the English Local Government Act of 1893, and in the case of the Local Government Act of Scotland in 1894. Parliament put these words in the Acts of both countries—
"Provided that in determining the amount of disputed compensation the arbitrator shall not make any additional allowance in respect of the purchase being compulsory."
That is the precedent which we ask the House to follow in the present case, for this simple reason: that in accepting this the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out what he contended for in the previous Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"What the owner of this land is entitled to is its fair capital value. I do not ask for any thing more."
What we now ask is that these owners, when they come before the arbitrator, shall not be allowed to avail themselves of what I may call arbitrator-made law, and not Judge-made law. A disastrous precedent was set, after the passing of the Lands Clauses Act in 1885, that in addition to the price of the value of the land the owner should have a bonus of 10 per cent. No man more loudly denounced that than the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, with respect to land acquired by municipal authorities. The right hon. Gentleman maintains that in addition to the full market price the owner should get this further amount. Although it may not be a convincing argument, you cannot shut out the fact that the land which will be required for these purposes must be in close propinquity to large towns, and it

307
will be very much enhanced in value owing to its proximity to those towns. If the owner is to get the full market value, the House, I think, ought to follow the precedent created in the Local Government Acts of England and Scotland, that the community shall not be fined an additional 10 per cent. because they require the land for these purposes.
*MR. PERKS: The clause seems to me to be a most reasonable one, and I can see no reason why the Government cannot adopt it. It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board must have forgotten that when a man is selling land for public purposes he not only usually gets the full market value, but he always gets large compensation for damage done to his severed land, and he invariably alleges that that is the most valuable piece of land he has got, and he gets a bonus because the rest of his land is depreciated in value. There is another point, which is this, that land taken in the suburbs of our towns for the erection of artisans' dwellings will bring on to that land a considerable population, and that for mercantile purposes, small shops and so forth, the adjacent land left in the hands of the vendor will be greatly increased in value. Another point is that the great cost of acquiring these lands is not the value of the land itself, but the enormous cost of surveyors, witnesses, counsel, solicitors, and a variety of other people who are almost invariably engaged before the arbitrator or a jury on compulsory purchases under the Land Clauses Act. The fact that there is in the Act a direct provision that nothing should be paid for taking land compulsorily will facilitate, to a very great extent, the acquisition of land by agreement between owners who wish to sell, and the community who wishes to buy, and that will be a very great advantage. We certainly ought not to lose sight of those considerations.
MR. BROADHURST: We labour under a considerable disadvantage in discussing this subject in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. I was myself a member of the Royal Commission to which the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire refers, and I remember perfectly well that the
308
Colonial Secretary was the clearest, ablest, and most valuable witness examined before that Commission. He showed to the satisfaction of the Commission that the proposal put forward for their consideration was consistent in itself, with full and complete justice to the owners of the land. No injury could follow the enforcement of this principle, and full and complete satisfaction would be obtained in all cases of compulsory sale. Now, I cannot see why, if the Government are really anxious to facilitate the question of the building, they cannot agree to this proposal. The landowners are all agreed that there is not the least risk of any kind whatsoever, and the county councils and the arbitrators feel every day the wrong that is done in this matter. My hon. friend has pointed out the enormous and permanent injury that has been done to the country by the imposition of this 10 per cent. in the schemes of the railways of this country. There is no doubt that it has hung round the neck of the railway systems a tremendous millstone, and from that the community suffers to-day. And it will continue to suffer if we add such a millstone to this Bill. Why should we add 10 per cent. over the value for compulsory purchase? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say there was no statutory obligation upon arbitrators to give the 10 per cent.; but he knows perfectly well that if there is no statutory obligation it is the practice, and is equally strong, and that if it is sought to restrain it it can only be restrained by the insertion into the Bill of some such language as that read by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton from the Local Government Act of six years back. Why not add that language to this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill much in the form and way in which he desired to have it; there has been no desire on the part of anyone upon this side of the House to do anything but to assist the right hon. Gentleman in passing it and improving it; and surely, under the circumstances, it is not too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman at this stage to accept an Amendment—an addition rather than an Amendment—without which there will be enormous difficulties in enforcing the law after the Bill has been passed by this House. I have the greatest desire to see this Bill become law, but I should like to see the additions.

309
made so that when it has become law it will be a practicable and useful law, and I firmly believe that without this Amendment its object will be considerably curtailed, and in some cases utterly destroyed.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I was rather disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not favour us with a smile when he said that the great burden lay on a single class. It has become a commonplace that this class are not only not heavily burdened, but, on the other hand, that they are very greatly benefited by the existing state of the law. He said also that we ought not to take out of the pockets of one particular class to benefit the public. This Bill deals only with land, and it is obvious to anyone who considers the matter for a moment that we want no other class of property. We do not want to buy railway shares compulsorily. We do not want to buy household furniture compulsorily. We do not want to buy watches or jewellery compulsorily. I would put it to the House that in adopting this Amendment we shall not do what many of us do not care to do—we shall not go in advance of public opinion. I think it would be a very wholesome thing if the House by passing the Amendment were to repeal the injunction or advice given to the arbitrators six years ago. A railway director has told us in very feeling tones, and my hon. friend the Member for Leicester has repeated it, that railway companies, and they might have said other companies, have been mulcted in this particular 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase to the detriment of the public. When a corporation intending to make a profit out of its working comes before an arbitrator, the arbitrator always has in his mind that the company is working for profit, and that it ought to be made to pay. But here is the case of a local authority acting for the benefit of the whole community, and, under the present condition of the law, suffering a great hardship. The case is very different from that of a company desiring to make an actual profit. I would recommend to the House this argument. I believe it ought to have great weight with all of us. In this case we an attempting to improve the position of those whose condition is a danger to the public.
MR. PICKERSGILL: The right hon. Gentleman opposite says there is no statutory authority for making this allowance, but that seems to me a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. It is a practice which has become so inveterate that unless the Legislature interferes no doubt it will go on. The right hon. Gentleman says it is right that the owner of the land should receive the full value of the land, and I entirely agree with that. How does it work out? It works out in this way. When the arbitrator has taken into account every consideration that can be urged by the owner of the land, he adds 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman has reminded us that six years ago the Legislature deliberately put down an extra 10 per cent. in the case of land acquired by a parish council. I challenge any gentleman opposite to Say why this 10 percent. should be taken away in the case of land acquired by a parish council, and why it should be left in the case of land acquired for the purpose we are now considering. I think the case is stronger in the latter point than in the former. I do hope the House will not take a retrograde step this evening.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman one or two points in this matter which, I think, have been slightly overlooked. In the first place, this land which is to be taken under the Bill is land in all respects similar to land now taken by the rural authorities under the Act of 1894. It is land like that taken for rural purposes by the parish councils; that is to say, it is not land in town, it is land in the rural districts. That kind of land, by the Act of 1894, could be taken compulsorily for allotments and other purposes, and there was also power to hire land. This Bill does not give us any power to hire land. The powers in this Bill are less than those in the Act of 1894, and there is the reason why you should make them similar. I think we should be relieved from the possibility of having to pay 10 per cent. compensation for compulsory purchase. There is a certain amount of experience in reference to these methods before the House. During the last few years the House has passed two Allotments Acts and they have been failures. The Allotments Acts passed by the Conservative Government

311
between 1886 and 1892 were Acts that gave little or no land to the labourers. The labourers did not get land in any large quantity till the 1894 Act came into operation. The experience of the working of those two Acts has shown that there is difficulty in using the methods of this Bill, and that there is an objection to the additional compensation. Although the addition to the price is comparatively small—it is not worth contending for on the part of the landowning classes—it forms a barrier. It checks the local authorities from carrying out what might be a beneficial piece of work for the locality. In the last two or
three years I have brought instances before the House in which local authorities had been asked to pay such prohibitive prices that they have been unable to carry out the orders given to them for compulsory purchase. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make this small concession, which, if granted, would, I believe, make the Bill more popular and more efficient for the purpose for which it is intended.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 150. (Division List No. 167.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Malley, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Flynn, James Christopher

Paulton, James Mellor

Ambrose, Robert

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Perks, Robert William

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Gibney, James

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Power, Patrick Joseph

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Price, Robert John

Baker, Sir John

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Reckitt, Harold James

Billson, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Hazell, Walter

Robson, William Snowdon

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sheehy, David

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Burt, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kearley, Hudson E.

Souttar, Robinson

Caldwell, James

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Steadman, William Charles

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumbland)

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Tennant, Harold John

Clancy, John Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Lough, Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Wallace, Robert

Daly, James

Macaleese, Daniel

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Dermott, Patrick

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Ghee, Richard

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dillon, John

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Doogan, P. C.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Woods, Samuel

Duckworth, James

Murnaghan, George

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Emmott, Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Yoxall, James Henry

Evershed, Sydney

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ffrench, Peter

O'Dowd, John

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

Mr. M'Arthur.

NOES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Brassey, Albert

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Balcarres, Lord

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Curzon, Viscount

Banbury, Frederick George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bethell, Commander

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bigwood, James

Charrington, Spencer

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Blakiston-Houston, John

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bousfield, William Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Llewelyn Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rutherford, John

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Shaw-Stewart M. H.(Renfrew)

Fry, Lewis

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Galloway, William Johnson

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Gedge, Sydney

Macdona, John Cumming

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Spencer, Ernest

Goldsworthy, Major-General

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim. E.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Thornton, Percy M.

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hanson, Sir Reginald

More Robt Jasper (Shropshire)

Usborne, Thomas

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Muntz, Philip A.

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gra'm (Bute)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Houston, R. P.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.)

Howard, Joseph

Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pender, Sir James

Williams, Jsph. Powell-(Birm.)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Percy, Earl

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newton)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Platt-Higgins, Frederick,

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Wrightson, Thomas

Keswick, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wylie, Alexander

Kimber, Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Purvis, Robert

Young, Commanded (Berks, E.)

Lafone, Alfred

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Rankin, Sir James

William Walrond and Mr.

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Anstruther

Question put, and agreed to.

*MR. CHANNING: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the clause I now beg to move, and I wish to express my gratification that he has come to that decision with regard to this question. I frankly admit that he has greatly improved the Bill.
New clause—
"Where land is acquired under Part 3 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, otherwise than by agreement, any question as to the amount of compensation which may arise shall in default of agreement be determined by a single arbitrator, to be appointed and removable by the Local 'Government Board, or in the case of a council in London, by the Secretary of State."—(Mr. Channing.)
—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
*MR. CHANNING: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consent to this proposition in the clause I now move. It is not inconsistent with the clause which has already been accepted on the motion of the noble Lord the Member for Cricklade. At the same time I admit that it would from the acceptance of that clause require some alteration,
314
if the principle of it is accepted. The object of the clause, of course, is to give the right to the county council to refer to the Local Government Board to set the Act in operation. I think that is a proposal which ought to be embodied in the Bill in some way or other, and I beg to move.
New clause—
"The county council, on a representation from a parish council, or any twenty ratepayers within a rural district, may claim that the adoption of Part III. in such rural district shall he referred to the Local Government Board, and thereupon the Local Government Board may hold a local inquiry, and after considering the report of such inquiry may make an order requiring the district council to adopt Part 3 within a time and under conditions prescribed in the order."—(Mr. Channing.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot accept this clause, for this reason. It would be inconsistent with the clause already accepted by the House. I think it would be unworkable.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I desire by the clause I now rise to move to raise the question which I raised in Committee, when the object I had in view received a considerable measure of support and sympathy from both sides of the House. I understand that my Amendment did not raise the question in the best possible manner, but the Government promised to consider the matter between that time and the Report stage. The object of my clause is to make it perfectly clear, at all events, that any county shall have power to acquire land, not only for the immediate, but also for the prospective needs of the locality. From the ground taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I understood him to say that there would be no limit to the amount of land which might be acquired for the purpose of providing dwellings for the people. I wish to examine that statement for a moment. I venture to think it is not quite accurate. Suppose we allow that a local authority has no power to acquire land, except so far as it is authorised by the Legislature to acquire land for a specific purpose. Here it is authorised to acquire land for the purposes of Part III. What are the purposes of Part III.? It is to supply the needs of the locality in respect of dwellings for the working classes. I think that in the present state of the law one is compelled to come to the conclusion that the needs of the locality would be held to mean the existing needs of the locality. I do not mean to say that the Legislature would hold the councils very strictly to provide merely for the existing needs of the locality, but that they would hold them to this extent: that there must be needs actually existing, or needs that would arise in the immediate future. If we leave this matter in doubt, a local authority will stand in an unsatisfactory position. In the first place, the money which it pays for land may be disputed by the Local Government Board auditor; and in the second place, which is probably a more formidable matter, as I understand, it would be quite possible for any ratepayer who found himself aggrieved to consider that the local authority were exceeding their powers, and to go to a court of law asking an injunction to restrain them. So far as regards acquiring land by agreement, I
316
think it will be obvious that it is precisely in those cases where it would be most for the public interest to acquire land, in order to make provision for the prospective needs of a locality, that the holders of the land would be least willing to sell; that is to say, you must contemplate a case in which land is perhaps in the hands of a single holder, or two or three individual holders, who are keeping it out of the market, and where it will' be necessary for the local authority, if they want the land, to got it by compulsion. In that case the local authority would have to apply for a Provisional Order, and I scarcely think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General will say that a local authority applying for an Order will be able to include in that land to meet needs which may arise after twenty or twenty-five years. I find that the procedure provided by law with respect to petitions for Provisional Orders is very stringent. It is absolutely within the discretion of the Local Government Board either, on the one hand, to dismiss the petition, or, on the other, if it is disposed to regard it with favour, it must, as I read the section, hold a local inquiry. In these circumstances, I do not think you can seriously say that, under the law as it at present stands, a Provisional Order could be got conferring powers on a local authority to acquire land the need for which would not arise for twenty or twenty-five years. It is very desirable, in order to prevent litigation and disputes, that the matter should be perfectly plain. I beg to move the clause which stands in my name.
New clause—
"Where it appears to any council which has adopted Part 3 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, that land will be required for supplying the needs of their district in respect of lodging-houses within any period not exceeding twenty-live years, such land may be acquired under the provisions of that part."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the clause be read a second time."
*MR. HAZELL: I have an Amendment down later on, which I understand is out of order, covering very much the same ground as that now under

317
discussion, so that I should like to say a few words in support of the clause of my hon. and learned friend. It appears to me that this House is in danger of rivetting upon the nock of the local authorities so many fetters that it will be very difficult to carry out any housing schemes at all. I do not know whether there are many in this House, but there are a number of people in the country, who regard what they are pleased to term "municipal trading," with a great deal of suspicion. But if we have confidence in local authorities and believe that they know the needs of their localities and are able to carry on their schemes with wisdom and honesty I think we ought to give them rather a freer hand than they will have under the Bill at present, which confirms the custom of their paying an exaggerated price for land which they require. Unless this clause is inserted we shall put the local authorities in a position different from that of any private buyer. It is notorious that private undertakings when they desire to acquire land watch the changes in the market and seize the opportunity to buy at a favourable time, but Parliament so hampers local authorities that they are obliged to buy land at a high price, if at all, and if they have more than they want they must sell it again. We are on the eve of great developments in electric traction, and it is perfectly clear that a far-sighted, clearheaded local authority would see that when electric tramways get out into the suburbs great areas of land, which are now used for agricultural purposes, would be most suitable for housing the working classes. If they had a freer hand and were able to look forward to the future it would be possible to buy that land now one-fifth or even one-tenth of the price which would have to be paid for it in the future. Therefore in the interest of local economy I hope the House will agree to the clause.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): When this matter was before the House on a previous occasion the Government promised to consider it. We have looked into the question, and we find that the matter has been several times before the Courts. The effect of the decisions has been that the local authority cannot apply land taken for the purpose of erecting
318
lodging - houses, or indeed for any purpose for which they have statutory powers, to any other purpose of a permanent nature without, of course, the authority of a fresh Act of Parliament, but that in the case of land taken for the purpose of erecting lodging-houses they may apply it temporarily, and even for a very considerable space of time, to any purpose not inconsistent with its being ultimately used for the purpose for which it was acquired.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I think it is entirely in the discretion of the Local Government Board.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Not entirely If the land is not required for lodging houses it must be sold, except where otherwise directed by the Local Government Board. No doubt a considerable amount of discretion is left to the Local Government Board, but in one of the cases to which I have referred the learned Judge went so far as to say there was no obligation if by any possibility at any future time the land could be applied.
MR. PICKERSGILL: But the Court of Appeal did not confirm that.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The Court of Appeal did not adopt that dictum; it was a mere dictum of the learned Judge, and was not necessary for the purpose of the decision. It really amounts to this—that land cannot be permanently used for any purpose other than that for which it is acquired. As regards the acquisition, I apprehend there is no rigid fetter upon the local authority; they are not bound to show that they are going to build upon the land at once, but there must be a reasonable prospect of their building upon it in the near future. The sanction is really in most cases to borrowing for the purpose of buying land, and if it appears that the local authority have not genuinely in view the erection of lodging-houses as certain to take place in the near future, it is hardly a case of buying land for the purpose of erecting lodging-houses. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this clause to see how it would work in practice. He proposes that if land is acquired for the erection of lodging-houses, it should be so used within any period not exceeding twenty-five years. How is a section of that kind

319
to be worked unless the gift of prophecy can be conferred upon the local authority, and also upon the authority who are to sanction the loan? How is it possible to say whether the land will be wanted in the course of twenty-five years, and, if so, whether the loan should be sanctioned? If it is not required for twenty-six years, it would be beyond the scope of the Act. I submit that such a clause is not practicable or workable, and that it is far better to leave the Bill in a somewhat elastic state as at present, so that if the land is genuinely being acquired for the erection of lodging-houses, somewhere in the near future, the sanction to the loan will be given. I am quite sure from cases that the local authorities are by no means very rigidly tied down as to the exact quantity of land that is acquired. If they see that in the course of the next few years they will want lodging-houses to accommodate, say, 500 people, and that there is a probability of an extension being required, there would be nothing to prevent them asking for sanction to a loan to acquire a larger quantity of land. Under all the circumstances, I submit that the clause moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman is not really wanted, and I trust the House will not accept it.
*MR. PERKS: Surely instead of being left, as the Attorney General suggested, to feel our way throughout the decisions of the various Coruts, about the effect of which he himself did not appear to be very clear, it would be far better to try to adapt this clause so as to enable a local authority to exercise the power of purchasing land which may be required, say, not within a limited period of twenty-five years—as that, I admit, might land you in the same dilemma as the Workmen's Compensation Act has with reference to the height of scaffolding—but within a reasonable period. Local authorities may be permitted by definite statutory enactment to acquire sufficient land for meeting the future necessities of the localities. It does not seem to me to be beyond the capabilities of the Law Officers to devise such a clause, and I submit that it would be far better to do that than to leave the question to be threshed out under conflicting decisions in the different Courts of Law.
*SIR F. S. POWELL: The House should bear in mind that the acquisition
320
of land may not prove to be any advantage to the purchasing authority. The land must be paid for by loan, and the interest on the loan rapidly accumulates, so that at the end of twenty or twenty-one years a local authority would find that they had paid in interest, beyond the amount of the purchase money, such a sum as made the purchase a very dear one, and one by no means advantageous to the authority. The House ought also to remember that the management of land always involves expense, that there may be various losses, such as the non-payment of rent, and that such a transaction, when it comes to be worked out as a question of finance and economy, may prove to be most expensive. These points ought to be considered before we give such a power to a district. I certainly think that many districts are far too sanguine as to their future. Many districts grow and grow again to the satisfaction and the wealth of all; but many districts, on the other hand, do not grow—infact, they rather decay; and I think in some of these cases it would be a great mistake to acquire land in the manner suggested. There is also this further consideration: there is such a thing as fashion among the working classes, and I do not know that in all cases land acquired by a locality for the working classes will be popular amongst those classes in twenty years' time. A district which is very attractive to-day may, in the course of those years, lose all its charms; for it must be remembered, when you plant a large colony in a country district, it ceases to a large extent to be a country district, and the attraction then goes. I am very glad the Bill has been so well received by the House, and I rejoice to find that it will soon become law, but I certainly think that a clause of this kind would be not an improvement, but an injury to the Bill.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I believe that this clause has been moved with the very best intentions, but I hope my hon. and learned friend will not press it to a division. I feel quite sure that it is much better to leave the Bill rather indefinite than to fix a period in the way suggested. In my opinion, as one having some experience in municipal work, a clause like this is practically impossible; you cannot estimate in any given town what will be the requirements for a period

321
of twenty five years, because some towns grow very rapidly, while others grow but slowly. There is also this danger. You have in every town a number of men who are speculators, and there is a possibility of their speculating in land and then becoming members of a local authority which may require to purchase that land for use within the period of twenty-five years. I may say that I do not consider that this Bill will be of very great value in any case—I have said so before—for the simple reason that no corporation is likely to undertake to purchase land outside its own area. I am sorry the clause put down by the hon. Member for South Shields, by which a municipality would have power to extend its boundaries so as to take in the land they may require, has been ruled out of order, but, in any case, I think it would be a danger to give these local authorities power to purchase land outside their own areas for the building of lodging-houses or houses to cover a period of twenty-five years in advance. Such a power might suit an authority like the County Council for London, but for an ordinary municipality it would be a danger, and, if exercised, might become a very serious burden on the ratepayers. I think the best thing is to leave the Bill, as the Attorney General says, in an elastic state, and therefore I hope the clause will not be pressed.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I think the objection of my hon. friend is more applicable to the Bill as a whole than to this particular clause. No doubt in all cases of this kind there is a danger of jobbery being indulged in by the local authority, but I am sure that that danger is greater and stronger with respect to the powers immediately given by the Bill than to the provision contained in this clause. The object of the clause is to enable corporations to buy without being driven into a corner in order to provide for the future. The probabilities are that corporations will not be induced to enter into any engagements for the future unless they have an opportunity for doing so advantageously by getting land very cheap. There is also an objection of the Attorney General which, on consideration, I do not think will be found to be so strong as he supposes. He suggested that this clause gave power to anticipate for a period of twenty-live years only, and that it
322
might turn out that twenty-six years would elapse before the land was required, and he seemed to imply that, therefore, the clause would be entirely inoperative. I differ from that view. It seems to me that the effect is that where a local authority contemplates the possibility of building within twenty-five years they may purchase without the consent of the authority or the approval of the Local Government Board, but if the twenty-five years elapse and their anticipations have not been verified, and a year or two more is required before they can build, they would then require a direction from the Board before they could keep the land any longer. I fail to see that any difficulty would arise, and I hope the clause will be agreed to.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am sorry to gather from the remarks of the Attorney General that he will not add anything of this kind to the Bill. I have once or twice pointed out that we want, as far as we can, to give the local authorities encouragement to obtain land. Everybody must remember that there are a great many difficulties connected with taking land outside the area of the municipality. In the first place, a municipality by so doing will be putting property within another rating area, and will have no opportunity of bringing that property within the borough or municipality which purchases the land. It would also be spending money outside its own area, and would be removing its own people out of its own area, and adding to the rateable value of another authority, and to its own detriment to a certain extent. The only thing that would induce them to do this work is the idea of doing good to the people of their own district. Moreover, in a few years time they may possibly be in the position of having land outside their own area which is only partly occupied by their own people, and they may have built up a whole village or district which will be occupied by people unconnected with the original municipality, and paying rates to a municipality which has done nothing in the way of housing the people. Therefore, I think if you were to extend the Bill by putting in the words "within a reasonable period," or something of that kind, it would be an inducement to local authorities to acquire land. I gather from the Attorney General

323
that in his view the administration of the Bill would give the local authorities that wider power of acquisition, and that the Local Government Board in sanctioning a loan would always act liberally in this respect. I think that is the strongest concession we can obtain on this particular point, and having that admission from the Attorney General, no doubt with the sanction of the Local Government Board to such an interpretation of the manner in which the Act will be administered by that Department, we must be content. At the same time I am sorry we cannot put into the Bill words to make it clear to the local authorities that they will not be limited in taking land to the immediate necessities they desire to meet.
MR. CHAPLIN: I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that this matter has been most carefully considered by the Attorney General, in conference with myself and the officials of the Local Government Board, and if we were of opinion that there was the slightest doubt upon the matter we should have endeavoured to frame an Amendment to meet the necessities of the case. But that was not the view of the Attorney General, and I entirely concur in his opinion. If hon. Members will look at the words of the Bill I think their apprehensions will be altogether removed. There is absolutely no limitation in the words of the Bill on the power to purchase to which the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is directed, so long as it is for the purpose and subject to the provisions of the Bill. Neither is there any obligation to sell under any circumstances unless the land is not required for the purpose for which it was purchased, and even then the Local Government Board has a dispensing power and is able to say that the land need not be sold, although it is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired. I hold that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be unfortunate, and would be a distinct limitation of the powers already possessed by local authorities, and I can conceive cases in which it would be an absolute hindrance. The hon. Gentleman desires to limit the period to twenty-five years. There is no such limitation in any Act of Parliament of which I am aware. Take a case in which a local authority has bought some
324
land for the purpose of housing the working classes. Adjoining that land there may be a small or large plot of land which it would be extremely desirable to purchase, land which in a few years is sure to go up in price, and which, if it was not for the limitation of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the local authority might be very anxious to purchase. I am speaking of land which might be subject to a lease for thirty years. Any Amendment of this nature would absolutely defeat the object and purpose of the Bill, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go to a division, because I think it is quite unnecessary.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I would ask leave to withdraw.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Amendment I have on the Paper appears to be somewhat mystical in its drafting, but its object is very simple. It will leave the incidence of rating in connection with this matter exactly as at present. When I moved this Amendment in Committee my right hon. friend said he would consider it before Report, and as I have perfect confidence in the justice of my Amendment, and also in the right hon. Gentleman, I shall say no more for the Amendment, but simply move.
The Amendment was—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 26, to leave out the words 'special and.' "
MR. CALDWELL: On a point of Order, Sir. Do I understand that this Amendment will have the effect of changing the taxation under the Bill? If so, of course it is not competent for it to come before us at this stage.
MR. CHAPLIN: At present the expenses of a district council under Part III. are "special" expenses unless the county council make them "general" expenses. Under the Bill as it stands they would be "general" expenses unless the Local Government Board made them "special." It reverses, so to speak, the presumption of law, but the effect, I believe, would be practically the same.
MR. CALDWELL: It must be a change of incidence if you are changing them from "special" into "general." Would the same ratepayer pay under the Amendment in the same proportion as under the Bill? That is the point, I think.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think we ought——
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is no question before the House, as these observations were directed to a point of order. I was not aware that any question of this kind arose, and I have not examined the section referred to, but I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that this does not cause a change in the incidence of taxation.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I rose to; a point of order, though I did not say so. J understood from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk, when this matter was discussed on a previous occasion, that it would alter very considerably the incidence of local rating. If that is so, I think before deciding on the question we ought to have a full explanation from the Attorney General.
*MR. CHANNINGasked whether this proposal would not have the effect of transferring part of the rates from agricultural ratepayers to the ratepayers in respect of houses or other property in villages or towns.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the effect of this Amendment would be that the expenses would be "special" unless the county council made them general.
*MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment is not in order.
Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Order for consideration of Bill as amended (by the Standing Committee) read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
*MR. CHANNING: On the consideration of this Bill,
326
I wish to offer a few remarks as to its provisions as amended by the Standing Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I dealt, perhaps at some length, on the general aspect of the Bill on its Second Reading. I do not propose to deal with it in the same sense now as I did then, but I wish to draw attention to one or two points which it may be desirable to consider before we proceed with the Report stage.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Lord HUGH CECIL, Greenwich). House counted, and, forty Members being found present.
*MR. CHANNINGresumed: I would desire to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House to one of the points of the Bill, to which great exception was taken not only on the second reading, but also in the Standing Committee as well as in the country. That is the provision with regard to arbitration. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking in the Standing Committee that Cause 2 should be amended in somewhat the sense which I then suggested. The Bill in its present form gives first place to an agreement as superseding, where it exists, the arbitration procedure. The effect of the clause as it now stands places the landlord in a position in which he might really dictate the whole mode of procedure, and even name the arbitrator. It provides that an agreement, if it existed, should entirely supersede the operation of the arbitration procedure, and that the arbitration procedure could only come into effect where there was no agreement. Very strong objection has been taken to that proposal, and in the Standing Committee I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that that part of the Bill would be amended in the sense which I and other hon. Members suggested—namely, that an agreement should not supersede the arbitration procedure, and that the arbitration procedure should come into operation if either party desired it. That is a very important point, and I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it. Then there was another matter which has somewhat a comical aspect. Some amusing speeches were made on the Second Reading as to the relations of this Bill to Scotland. The clause as it now stands was the re-

327
sult of communications between the right hon. Gentleman and the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture; but the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture have now come to an exactly opposite conclusion, and have decided, after a very prolonged discussion, that it would be far better to revert to the original clause of the old Act of 1883. That is a serious situation, on which I think it would be well to have some light before we proceed further. It also seems to me that it would be extremely desirable if, in legislation of this kind, the Government would place the landlord and the tenant absolutely on an equal footing as regards the initiation of proceedings under the Act, and also as regards certain stages of the proceedings so far as is possible, especially the lodging of claims. Several Amendments were adopted upstairs, but they do not go far enough. What is really desired is that there should be an equality of position, and that as a corollary the landlord should be given the right of initiating proceedings under the Act. Then the Bill improves very greatly the procedure of arbitration, but does nothing to improve the status and position of valuers and arbitrators to be employed under the Act. I think that is a very grave omission. It seems to me that the success of the Act will largely depend on the improvement it effects in the status of valuers and arbitrators. The Act of 1883 failed principally owing to the inferior status, character, and capacity of a great many local valuers who had to carry it out. These will be eliminated to a certain extent by the adoption of a single arbitrator procedure, and I hope the Board of Agriculture, under their powers under this Bill, may be able to do something in the direction of weeding out unsatisfactory valuers, to be succeeded by a better class, who will deal with this question in a broad spirit. I regret very much that we were unable in the Standing Committee to obtain any real and substantial extension of the Bill with regard to essential improvements, which have done so much to keep both landlord and tenant going during the period of agricultural depression. The Government have given a concession, in making an allowance for seeds, but it does not go half far enough. It seems to me that the right of the tenant who, by great sacrifices, has created on the estate of the landlord one
328
of its most valuable assets—namely, permanent pasture—should be recognised. That is a serious blot on the Bill, and if it is passed without that defect being, remedied, I can only repeat what I said on the Second Reading—that the Bill will not go far enough in dealing with an essential situation. A tenant who improves the land to the highest degree, and who employs a large amount of capital, ought to get the sort of protection he really needs. I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to these points, the first of which I understood the right hon. Gentleman gave an, undertaking to rectify—namely, the placing of an agreement before the procedure for arbitration.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY: At this stage I desire to raise a point in connection, with the Bill which I think is of the most vital importance, and I would wish to know what action the Government intend to take regarding it. There is, much in this Bill of which I heartily approve, and I should be extremely sorry to see it lost, but I think, the Government have brought it on at a very inconvenient time. I understand there is to be a meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture to meet Members representing agricultural constituencies to consider the provisions of this Bill, and it is a pity that the Bill has been brought on before we have had the advantage of their opinion regarding it. I may say at once that the question which, I consider of vital importance is the question of the arbitrator not giving any details whatever as to the reasons for his award of compensation, and I think we should have a very definite explanation, from the Government in this matter. One of the objects of the Act of 1883 was to, alter the very slipshod and unsatisfactory method of making valuations both on, behalf of the landlord and on behalf of the tenant, and it was distinctly stated in; Section 19 that the arbitrator should give the reasons—the broad reasons, at all events—on which he based the amount of his award. This has been entirely dropped in this Bill. No doubt it is the wish of the Government to simplify matters, and I believe that one of the chief arguments which will be used against giving details is that it will do away almost entirely with litigation, and

329
also with the right of appeal. I, personally, do not in the least care about the right of appeal, but [do care very much indeed that the arbitrator should give reasons for his decision. I think it is perfectly easy to understand why it is desirable that these details should be given. It is ridiculous to provide that an arbitrator should simply state that he awards a sum of £300 or £400 which the incoming tenant has to pay to the outgoing tenant, and yet give no reason whatever for that award. It would be equally unfair for an arbitrator to decide that the outgoing tenant should pay £200 to the landlord for dilapidation and state no reasons. Take a very simple instance. The arbitrators may act, and, I believe, will act, in all good faith, but it is perfectly plain that a clerical error may occur. Take the case of a tenant with a mill on his farm. With the consent of his landlord he has put new machinery into that mill. He dies, and the arbitrator fixes the amount of the compensation to be paid to his executor's. In perfect good fait a the agent states that the improvements and works were carried out by the tenant, but by a clerical error the landlord is credited with the new machinery, and the arbitrator thereupon proceeds to award to the executors a sum of £50, which, under the circumstances, would be a grave injustice, and there is no possible means of finding out if a clerical error had been committed. This is, of course, a very strong case, but it might arise. Take another case. A tenant goes to a landlord and asks that a certain field may be drained. The question arises to who is to pay, and ultimately the tenant carries out the work. He dies leaving a widow who knows nothing about the drainage, and it would be perfectly easy in that case, owing to a clerical error, for the arbitrator to conclude that it was the landlord and not the tenant who drained the field. It is to the interest of the landlord as well as to the interest of the tenant that the arbitrator should give the reasons on which he based his decision. With regard to valuers and arbitrators they stand very high indeed, but I think it would very greatly raise their status if they were required to give details of their decision. I myself cannot understand what the difficulty in the way is. I do not wish an arbitrator to go into every minute detail, but he should give the
330
broad reasons. He should state, for instance, how much was given to the tenant for tillage, and how much for drainage and other permanent movements, and then again, how much was given to the landlord for unpaid rent, and how much for waste, and how much, if any, for breach of the contract of tenancy. I do think, broadly speaking, that this question will commend itself to most men. It is not a difficult question in the least to understand, even by those not engaged in agricultural pursuits. In the interests of landlord and tenant it would be far more convenient, and would improve this Bill enormously. I do not think it matters one bit whether we have a right of appeal or not; for there is no doubt that if the umpire or arbitrator were to state under what heads he gave certain sums of money, and it was found that these were unfair, he would instantly lose caste in the county and nobody would employ him again. The effect of that would be to raise the status of the arbitrator, and it would be a matter of convenience to landlord and tenant. Under the present proposal the arbitrator is to go through a hundred matters, and at the end he is to give his decision; but are one can tell whether he has given consideration to any one of these matters. Unless some satisfactory answer to this question is given by the Government, I shall use every endeavour to hinder the progress of the Bill, though I admit there are many things in it of which I heartily approve. I think, really, that the Government ought to give way on some points.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): All the points raised by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire and the noble Lord the Member for Horncastle, with one exception, will be raised in regard to new clauses to be moved on Report stage. The one question which could not be raised by any Amendment is as to the effect of an agreement under Clause 2, to which reference was made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I was astonished to hear him say that he came away from the Committee upstairs with the impression that I had undertaken to consider his Amendment to the Bill which would have had the effect of destroying; the purpose of an agreement between landlord and tenant.
*MR. CHANNING: I consented to withdraw my Amendment in Committee on the distinct understanding that the Government promised to consider and provide for it before the Report stage.
*MR. LONG: I cannot admit that I entered into any agreement to leave the matter in that way. I do not recollect that I did so, and it certainly never entered into my mind that I should be able to accept an amendment which would destroy the effect of an agreement between landlord and tenant. What I undertook to consider was whether it would be possible to deal with cases in which there was an unwilling agreement. The view the Government have taken throughout, with regard to the relations, of landlord and tenant, is that we believe the tenant is very well able, if he chooses, to examine for himself, and to make up his mind for himself, what the form the agreement ought to take. And if he chooses to enter into an agreement with the landlord as to arbitration, we have not thought it desirable to substitute the arbitration procedure of the Bill for any procedure so adopted as between landlord and tenant. The next question is as to Sub-section 4, Clause 1. The hon. Member said that the Amendment on that was the result of a conference with the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, but it was amended in Committee in a direction which, I am sure, will secure justice to all parties. The hon. Member also expressed his hope that the landlord and tenant should be placed on the same footing, and that the landlord should be able to initiate proceedings. I was rather surprised to hear him express that pious hope in regard to the footing of equality of landlord and tenant in relation to operations on the farm. A landlord enjoys at Common Law certain rights which he is entitled to enforce, and therefore there is an essential difference between the position of landlord and tenant. Unless you are prepared to deprive the landlord of those rights which he enjoys at Common Law—and this, I take it, is not desired by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire—it is impossible to put the landlord and tenant on an equality. As to giving the landlord power to initiate proceedings, that would be obviously unnecessary and useless, because, as I have said, you cannot get rid of his rights at Common Law. I agree with the hon. Member that
332
the position of valuers would be materially improved by the adoption of the procedure under this Bill. It will increase their dignity and throw a greater responsibility upon them than at present. But for the Board of Agriculture to select arbitrators, and thus to limit the choice to those so selected, would, I think, be most undesirable. It would be extremely difficult for a satisfactory and sufficiently comprehensive list to be adopted to suit the requirements of all parts of the country, and enable parties to feel certain that they would get justice done. In regard to the question of permanent pasture raised by the Amendment on the Paper, I will deal with it when we reach it. But I may say that although I regard permanent pasture as a great advantage to a farm when properly laid down, I will endeavour later on to give my reasons for believing that it would be unfair and undesirable to give the tenant the right to lay down permanent pasture without the consent of the landlord; the exercise of such a right would involve a complete change in the character and nature of the holding. My noble friend the Member for Horncastle raised another point altogether. I confess I was a little astonished at his blaming the Government for bringing on this Bill at this time. He suggested that we should have waited till the meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, but I would remind him that the date of that meeting had not then been fixed. When the time comes when he will be responsible for the business of Parliament he will realise that we cannot be guided in our business arrangements here by those of outside parties, otherwise public business would be indefinitely prolonged, and I am inclined to think that that is not desirable. I am now going to deal with what is undoubtedly a very important point, and that is the action of the Government in regard to arbitration proceedings. In the first place the Government were urged, I may say on all sides, when we were considering this question at its earliest stages, to secure machinery for the settlement of differences between landlord and tenant which would be economical both in regard to money and time, and which would make the settlement of these differences as simple as it could possibly be made. The Royal Commission which dealt with this subject recommended that the pro-

333
cedure of the Arbitration Acts should be applied to the settlement of these differences. That procedure is a single arbitrator, from whose decision, in reference to facts, there is no appeal. He gives his award exactly in the form provided by this Bill. What is it that my noble friend is afraid of? He gives us as an illustration a case regarding mill machinery, in which an injustice has been done through a clerical error; but it struck me that it was an illustration of injustice arising not so much owing to a clerical error as to a misstatement of fact. My noble friend will not depend on the award of the arbitrator; he wants to know what the different claims are by the tenant, and the different awards by the arbitrator. But suppose there are two classes of property owned by the same man—say, 1,000 acres of agricultural land and 1,000 acres of urban land. Some of the urban land is taken, and there is an arbitration as to the price; he gets his award on a single sheet of paper, without any details as to the value of the different parts of the property. Why not adopt the same procedure in regard to agricultural land? My noble friend says he does not care about an appeal; he only wants the information as to the valuation of the different parts of the property. But what, I ask, is the use of that information if there is no appeal?
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY: I say if you had it you would never employ the arbitrator again.
*MR. LONG: If the arbitrator has given an unfair award, you would discover that without taking the award to pieces. If yon are going to give the heads under which the award is decided, or the reasons for the amount at which the arbitrator arrives at his figures, you must give an appeal in order that the differences of estimate may be ascertained. The moment you give an appeal you get rid of the simplicity and finality of these proceedings, and thus introduce litigation. Now, our main object in introducing the Arbitration Act procedure is that we may simplify the machinery, cheapen the procedure, and give to the arbitrator a responsible position so as to enable him to settle definitely and once for all, all matters of fact—leaving an appeal only on matters of law. This procedure of
334
the Arbitration Act has been successful where it has been employed. In no other kind of arbitration is it necessary for the arbitrator to give reasons for his decision or the heads of his award; and I do not see why we should give a procedure to agricultural tenancies different from that in all other arbitrations. My noble friend concluded his remarks by saying that if my reply was not satisfactory he would offer every opposition to the passage of this Bill. I would point out that there will be abundant scope for him on Report stage to criticise the parts of the Bill to which he objects without the sweeping method of rejecting the whole Bill.
*EARL PERCY: I am not at all surprised that my noble friend the Member for Horncastle should have adopted the point of view that he did, both on the ground as to the time selected by the Government for bringing this measure before the House, and on the ground of the provisions which it contains. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire complained that the Bill had been brought on before the meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. That is not a point on which I feel strongly, although the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might have deferred the consideration of the Bill until he had had the opportunity of hearing the opinion of that body. But there is another point of far greater importance than that of the opinions of chambers of agriculture. Many Members who take a great interest in the Bill were given to understand, through the ordinary channels of communication, that the measure would not be taken for several days, and it was with considerable surprise that we saw, last Friday, that the Bill, instead of being made the third Order of the Day, was put down as second. It must be remembered that comparatively few on this side of the House were present on the Select Committee, and it cannot be denied that the procedure adopted is not a very satisfactory one for discussing such debatable provisions as are contained in this Bill, especially for hon. Members who are engaged on Committees on other Bills. I think the Government would have consulted the convenience of their friends by postponing the consideration of this measure. I do not believe there is any real demand for the Bill, and I cannot conceive

335
that there is any great advantage in it over the Bill of 1883. It, however, to a certain extent, simplifies procedure, and we are all in favour of simpler procedure, of getting rid of the legal element as far as possible, and of reducing cost. But the Bill goes far beyond that, and introduces principles of a totally different and debatable character to which many in this House, and outside it, object. One is the limitation of the landlord's right of distraint, which, in my opinion, is against the policy systematically argued for fifteen years, of increasing the number of small holdings. Then it increases the number of cases in which the tenant may claim compensation for improvements which he has carried out without the consent of the landlord. I hold strong opinions on that point. I think that you should limit the number of improvements which the tenant may embark upon without the consent of the landlord to those which are absolutely necessary for the proper cultivation of the holding. The moment you go beyond those improvements absolutely necessary to proper cultivation, and go in for orchards, osier beds, permanent pasture, etc., you introduce a radically different principle from that which has been long established—a principle capable of very serious and indefinite extension. There is another point in regard to the question of an appeal from a decision of an. arbitrator. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this Bill does not introduce any very material difference in the practice of the present law.
*MR. LONG: It does introduce a radical change.
*EARL PERCY: Yes, a radical change in this sense: that you get rid of the power of appeal; and that is one of the points to which I most object. You set up a single arbitrator without any limits to his discretion. He has no assessor, and from his decisions you have no right of appeal. He has the power of entirely confiscating the property of the landlord and transferring it to the tenant. Now, my noble friend asks a very simple question. He asks the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that provision shall he made in the Bill that the arbitrator will state the reasons for his award. But the right hon. Gentleman says that if such a provision is made
336
it will be necessary to retain the right of appeal. For my part I should be very much in favour of retaining the right of appeal, and I frankly admit that I disagree with the measure on that point, and agree with my noble friend. If there were a right of appeal to a judicial court we should soon create a general code which would be a guide to future arbitrators. By an appeal, for instance to a County Court Judge, you would obtain a decision from a competent judicial authority, and that decision would be a guide, as I have said, to the arbitrators but at present there is no principle to assist them. One arbitrator gives his decision on one principle which appeals to him, and another on another principle. It is only by an appeal to a court of justice that you can get a definite code of principles which would be binding on the arbitrators. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on one point. When he talks of the necessity of an appeal, if the arbitrator gives details under separate heads of the award, I think he is probably confusing two points of view which are really distinct—that is an appeal on a question, of law and an appeal on a question of fact.. The Bill proposes to do away with an appeal on questions of fact, but not on questions of law. The right hon. Gentleman says that no details are given in the award in commercial cases, or in cases of the compulsory purchase of land in towns. There is one answer to that, and that is that the owners of that class of property have never had a right to appeal against the decision of the arbitrator, whereas since 1883 the holders of agricultural property have, equally with the tenants, had a right of appeal. But another point far stronger than that is that in the case of the compulsory purchase of land I believe it is the fact that the arbitrator always states a case for a superior court on his own initiative. Therefore, it is always possible for the parties to the dispute to get a decision upon questions of law as well as questions of fact. But it will be said that under this Bill they can also appeal; that they can go to the County Court and say this is a question of law, and ask for a mandamus against the arbitrator, calling upon him to state a case. But you cannot appeal for the statement of a case without knowing the facts, and if the arbitrator makes the award in a

337
lump sum upon two schedules, each containing fifteen or twenty provisions, how is it possible for any landowner or tenant to lay his finger upon a particular point as the point where the particular question of law has arisen? All we ask is that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the points I have placed before him. I am not a legal authority, but I have studied this subject with some care, and I am certain that if leave is given, the principle on which it will be given is on a question of law. Such a solution as has been suggested will relieve the Member for the Horncastle Division of Lincolnshire from the painful necessity of obstructing this Bill. I do not myself desire to obstruct it, and should be glad to see it passed into law; but I do think there are many points which require consideration.
CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: This question of arbitration is a simple one, but I think there is some misapprehension with regard to it. As we read the Bill I think some of us have rather gathered that this arbitrator is to come in as between the parties in dispute without the intervention of anyone. If that had been so there would have been the gravest cause of complaint. Here are two parties, one of whom has a claim against the other, or each have claims against the other, and if the arbitrator, who is called in, has to come in and inquire into the whole complicated case and give his decision, embracing all the different issues, and give no particulars as to how that decision is arrived at, and there is to he no appeal whatever, and no intervention of an expert between him and the parties concerned, there would ensue a condition of things which would probably give rise to very great complaint. But as I read the Bill that is not the case. There are some very important words in the second section, line 8, page 2: "If the landlord and tenant fail to agree." I take those words to mean that arbitration is only to be resorted to when the valuers, who are naturally appointed between the parties in the first instance, and who are experts, have failed to agree with regard to any particular matter mentioned in the schedule, and not necessarily, I may say never, with regard to the whole of the schedule. The Bill further says, If there is a
338
difference in respect of an improvement." I take that to mean in respect of a particular improvement in regard to which there is a difference of opinion. When there is a difference of opinion under this Bill the parties appoint each his own valuer, and then if the valuers fail to agree upon any particular point the arbitrator is called in and his decision is final upon the matter of fact. That is, as I suppose, on the financial fact of £ s. d., and if that be so there will not be any serious source of complaint, because there will be two experts appointed by the parties themselves. Therefore, instead of not knowing upon what facts the arbitrator took his decision, the facts would be laid before him by the valuers—the experts—of the parties concerned, and the aggrieved party would only have to apply to his own valuer, because he, having laid the case before the arbitrator, must know what points the decision was given upon. If that is so, it brings these cases within the category of those commercial arbitrations, or Lands Clauses Act arbitrations, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, because in those cases the parties between whom the arbitration is are represented by experts, who lay their case before the arbitrator. And there the arbitrator's decision, as to matters of fact, is final. In regard to matters of law there is an appeal which is exactly similar under the old Act. Under the Lands Clauses Umpire Act of 1883 there were first of all two referees, and then an arbitrator, although I do not know that the advantage was greater because you had three experts instead of one, because if you had two parties concerned in a case of this kind either party if he be cantankerous could drag the other party before an arbitrator, and put him to considerable expense. As a question of landlord and tenant I personally look upon it as a landlord, but I also look at it from the point of view of the farmer, and I feel myself that if my valuer failed to come to an agreement with the valuer of the party who is quitting my land, and a responsible arbitrator was appointed to decide between those two men, and my valuer had a locus standi to put my case before him, I should be quite satisfied with the decision as to matters of fact. As to questions of law it would be different; and as to questions of law and the stating of a case for a superior court, I do not see why agricul-

339
tural experts should not do the same as is done in commercial arbitrations.
*EARL PERCY: In commercial cases questions of law that are likely to arise are stated at once before the arbitration commences; in agricultural arbitrations they are not so obvious. I cannot see what objection there can be to giving the particulars.
CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: When it comes to stating a case for a superior court, of course particulars must be given, and particulars can be demanded. To take a case to a court of law without any particulars would be a preposterous thing, but I never contemplated that. The point I am dealing with, and it is a point which I think requires an answer, is whether the parties themselves should say whether it was desirable or not that a case should be stated. Where experts are appointed by the parties, they will be of the same class as the arbitrator himself; they have the same knowledge of agricultural law, and I think they would be able to decide for themselves whether there is any necessity to state a case. Therefore we have no reason to fear that a decision will be given by the arbitrator which will be wrong in law, and that neither party will be able to find the point upon which that decision was given, and that the wrong decision will stand. I am bound to say that, although I examined this Bill very carefully, I was very much of the opinion of my noble friend; but having given it further and closer study, I think this Bill will work out very satisfactorily—that very few cases indeed will come forward; the valuers will be able to settle nearly every case, and when they cannot settle a case the appointment of an arbitrator supported by the appeal to the County Court on a question of law will be very satisfactory. There are two other points which were mentioned by my noble friend, which require the careful consideration of the House. The first was in regard to the question of distress. I think we should look very carefully indeed at the distress clause before we interfere with the existing clause in the Act of 1883. It is not a landlord's question, it is a tenant's question, and, as a landlord, I feel very loth to express an opinion upon it; but I hope that this clause will not be pressed. With regard to the question raised by
340
my noble friend with respect to the change in the character of the holding, that should also be looked into very carefully. The broad principle has been laid down in the first schedule of this Bill that where an improvement has anything to do with the cultivation of the farm only it ought to be allowed, but that when it comes to altering the permanent character of the holding the consent of the landlord should be necessary. The three things mentioned by my noble friend—osiers, gardens, and orchards—would distinctly alter the character of the holding, and would require careful consideration by the landlord. It is in itself, perhaps, a small matter, and as it stands I do not think a single landlord would object; but it happens that there is a great principle involved, and whether it is worth while to insert this particular provision to depart from that principle, which is of value now and may be of good use hereafter, is questionable. Therefore I think, for the reasons I have laid before the House, that this Bill when it, passes into law will prove satisfactory.
MR. BUCHANAN: I venture to think that the interpretation which the hon. Member for Woodbridge has put upon this Bill is different from that which is generally put upon it, and I should like to know whether the interpretation which he puts upon Clause 2 is that which the Government puts upon it, because the substance and the character of this Bill will be entirely altered if that interpretation is correct. As I understand it, whenever a case arises where a tenant wants to make a claim, under this Bill an arbitrator is to be at once appointed and give his decision. There is no intermediate stage, as the hon. Gentleman stated, of appointing valuers. The hon. Gentleman accentuated the importance of the interpretation which he placed upon Clause 2, by saying that if his interpretation was correct there would, be very little resort to this Bill either by tenants or landlords. I think, therefore, that we ought to have from the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to whether the interpretation of the hon. Member for Woodbridge is correct, and the procedure indicated by him that which it is intended shall be taken under this Bill. I hope the Government will not listen to the arguments urged by the noble Lords

341
opposite. First of all as to the form in which the award of the arbitrator is to be given; that is one of the few gains offered to the agricultural community under this Bill, and you do simplify these cases when you say the award shall be given in a lump sum. I also hope the Government will not listen to the arguments urged as to the appeal. As I understand the two noble Lords, they wish to have incorporated not only the question of law but also the question of facts. I think we ought to simplify and cheapen procedure as much as possible; but when you give a right to appeal on a question of fact as well as of law you increase the procedure, and also the cost. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill said that one of the objects was to simplify and cheapen the procedure, but in my opinion, if he accepts the suggestions of the noble Lords it will have exactly the opposite result.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid that, in all honesty, he thought by the arrangement which had resulted in this Bill being considered at the present time the Government had not displayed very much consideration for their supporters, many of whom had received the impression that the Bill was not to be discussed at so early a date.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): May I ask where the noble Lord obtained that information, and whether it was through the ordinary channels of the House?
LORD HUGH CECIL: I understand so; the information was conveyed to me. I do not suggest any breach of faith, but this is a very inconvenient time to have this debate, and it happens that a great many Members are unable to be in their places on the present occasion. One cannot rid one's self of the suspicion that that was one of the considerations which induced the Government to put down the Bill for to-night.
*MR. LONG: The suggestion is unworthy of the noble Lord, and quite unfounded.
LORD HUGH CECILdid not suggest anything improper or dishonourable on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but
342
the occasion was inconvenient, and therefore he thought it was necessary to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider as favourably as possible the Amendments which came before him, especially on points which, like the one under discussion, were somewhat intricate. Who was to decide what was the proper interpretation of the Act? The hon. Member for Woodbridge took one view, the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire took another. He hoped before the discussion came to a conclusion the Attorney General would advise the House as to what was the proper interpretation. He thought the House would be well advised in inserting words into the Bill which would make the matter plain, as there was certainly no object in passing an ambiguous clause. With regard to the question of appeal, the appeal was resisted on the ground that it would destroy the character and the simplicity which was the great feature of the Bill. He quite agreed that simplicity of procedure was a very good thing, but it might, he thought, be purchased at too high a price. Cheap justice or rough justice, generally meant no justice at all. A similar discussion arose during the passage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill through the House, and a very important Amendment was inserted upon the question of the right to take the master to the Court of Appeal. In that case the Government allowed the House to take its own course, and that Amendment was carried in spite of the arguments brought against it. Then, as now, it was said that the character and simplicity of the Bill would be destroyed, and that artisans would be involved in great expense, but ultimately the Amendment was inserted. It was no doubt essential to have a simple form of doing justice, but the object of such a system was, it must be remembered, to do justice between the parties, and it should be made so plain that the people knew what to expect when they went to law. Probably the most simple system of law and administration the world had ever seen was the system of revolutionary government under the Convention in 1793. Nothing could exceed the simplicity of that procedure under which people could get a decision in an extraordinarily short space of time—cases of a criminal character being disposed of in the space of twenty four hours. But because the procedure

343
was simple it was not good. Simplicity was apt to be synonymous with a rough and ready system of justice, which was often very unfair. This Bill was one which undoubtedly commanded wide support, but it was impossible not to see, even in the course of the present discussion, that the Bill might be used as a platform for further legislation of a much more objectionable character. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire frankly said that he regarded the Bill as very faulty. He said it did not go far enough, and he anticipated that in the future legislation must go much further. His right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture had argued as from past precedents, and a similar argument would be applicable to all the precedents set up under this Bill. Therefore they were entitled to consider this Bill most carefully, and he earnestly hoped that the Government, in spite of exhortations coming from the other side, would not shut the door in the face of their own supporters. It was, of course, only too easy for the Government, anxious to pass the Bill, to remember that opponents could give more trouble than supporters, and not to give too much consideration to the merits of the case. He hoped, however, that that would not be the case in regard to the present Bill, and that the Government would decide these questions in accordance with right and justice.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): There is one point on which I cannot agree with my noble friend who has just spoken. He said that our opponents could always give more trouble than our supporters. I am not sure that my noble friend has described that matter accurately. I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Member for South Kensington say that this is a good Bill, and that, on the whole, he is anxious that it should pass. I gather that that is the opinion of all the other noble Lords and hon. Members who have spoken. Various points have been raised, but I would remind the House that what we are now asking is that this Bill should be considered, and all these points, of course, will be considered at the proper time and in the proper way. It has been said that the clause with regard to the right of distress goes too far, but the intention of that clause is to carry out what was the
344
object of the Legislature in 1883, and if anyone can say that that intention has not been carried out it will be legitimate ground for considering whether the law should not be amended. There are only one or two points on which I wish to say a word or two at this stage. I shall refer first to the construction of the second section of the Bill—
"If a tenant claims to be entitled to compensation, whether under the principal Act or this Act, or under custom, agreement, or otherwise, in respect of any improvement comprised in the First Schedule of this Act, and if the landlord and tenant fail to agree as to the amount and time and mode of payment of such compensation, the difference shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions, if any, in that behalf in any agreement between landlord and tenant, and in default of and subject to any such provisions by arbitration under this Act in accordance with the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act."
Provision is made for raising any question of law which may relate to one of the parties and which may not relate to the other. I quite agree with my hon. friend the Member for the Woodbridge division that landlord and tenant before they rush to arbitration will probably, like sensible Englishmen, take skilled advice, and put their differences in the hands of experts, although, of course, there is no obligation upon them to do so. If they fail to agree, after every facility has been afforded, then, and not till then, they will go to arbitration. The practice hitherto in too many cases has been for the landlord and tenant when they failed to agree each to appoint his arbitrator. The provision now is that if any question of law emerges in the course of the arbitration either party may require the arbitrator to state a case, and if the Judge of the County Court directs that he should do so he is bound to state a case. In the second schedule of the Bill the ninth rule says:
"The arbitrator may at any stage of the proceedings, and shall, if so directed by the judge of a county court (which direction may be given on the application of either party) state, in the form of a special case for the opinion of that court any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration."
I would ask the House whether it is not more convenient, if a question of law arises in the course of an arbitration, that it should be disposed of while the case is pending and before the final award.

345
Formerly the matter went to award, and from that there was an appeal. I do not think the word in regard to that matter can be made clearer. It is not the intention of the Bill in any way or in the slightest degree to prevent full consideration by the court of any question of law that arises. It would be a question of law whether an improvement was of such a nature that compensation was fair or not under the Act, but with regard to that we desire that the fullest opportunity should be given for the consideration of these questions. The appeal on the question of law is intended to be conserved, and, if any change is necessary to make that clear it can be considered when the Bill is dealt with upon the Report stage.
MR. HUMPHREYS - OWEN: The point in the Bill which we have hitherto been discussing docs not seem to me to be nearly so important as the point which originated the discussion—I mean the point raised by the noble Lord opposite, namely, the direction to the arbitrator that he should specify in his award the different heads. He referred to what is done under the Lands Clauses Act, but the case is not at all parallel to the number of different questions which will be raised between landlord and tenant as to the various improvements specified in the Bill. Each separate improvement raises a separate consideration, and it is perfectly reasonable that the parties should be told in which of these points they have succeeded and in which of them they have failed. Moreover, it is considered that many of the arbitrators before whom those questions will come will not be men of any very great experience, and certainly will not have any great amount of practice in deciding upon points on which they have to say yes or no. It will tend very greatly to satisfactory awards if they are tied down to state in each case what the breach of covenant consists in, what the claims consist of, and what the award is in each case. Another question has been raised as to distress. It has been said that this is a tenants' question, but it must not be forgotten that the existence of the right of distress necessarily tends to increase competition for farms, because it enables men with rather less capital to take farms on account of there being a first charge in
346
favour of the landlord for a considerable amount. It is said that to give the right of distress will encourage small holdings. In my opinion it is not likely to have that result, and I speak with very considerable experience in small holdings. My experience is, if a small holder once gets into arrear his case is hopeless, and it is better that there should be no inducement to the landlord to give indulgence. That clause in the Bill should be allowed to stand. Complaints have been made against putting permanent grass and other improvements of that kind in the category of those which in the view of the landlord are not required. There is no doubt that any sensible landlord would assent to the laying down of permanent pasture, and the planting of osier beds, if done reasonably and by a reasonable tenant; but there is still a considerable number of absentee landlords whose estates are managed in a rigid way, not by agents familiar with country affairs, but by London lawyers or agents. On these grounds I hope the Government will consider before we come to the Report stage the suggestion made, and if the noble Lord the Member for Horncastle should press any Amendment in the direction he has indicated certainly I should be very glad to support it.
*MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I have listened with astonishment to the different views expressed as to the mode of arbitration procedure under Clause 2, and therefore it is very difficult to understand what the procedure will be. The suggestion I am going to make to the Government is this. During the negotiations between this Government and the Transvaal Government before the outbreak of the war, the Transvaal Government introduced a Bill offering to reduce the term of qualification for the franchise to five years for Uitlanders, the Colonial Secretary made the very unique suggestion that the Transvaal Government should appoint a joint. Commission to inquire into the working of the law before it came into operation—that is, if the Bill became law. My suggestion is that the Government should try the experiment by suspending this Bill and appointing a Commission to inquire as to how the second clause would work. I believe that suggestion to the Transvaal Government was a unique one, and it would be interesting if the Government would try the experiment on their own

347
particular measures. Members Who had listened to the discussion on this side of the House were absolutely in a state of confusion as to what this clause is.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I certainly think it is most proper that this Bill should be considered, and I would suggest respectfully that it should be considered from the point of view of the drafting. My view is that it is the extraordinary method of drafting that has caused much of the confusion that has been apparent during this debate, and to that also is no doubt due the outburst of the noble Lord. It is in consequence of the defects of drafting that the Bill as it stands is the most remarkable example of referential and allusive legislation I have ever come across. As it stands the Bill is an absolute cryptogram, and nobody can possibly approach to an understanding of it until he has provided himself with nine other Acts of Parliament. Without these it is as much a mystery as the hieratic writing of the great Egyptian priests was a mystery to the common people who only understood the common writing. Yet the Act is intended for plain men, and to enable landlords and tenants to understand their positions and relations to each other. The whole suggestion of the Attorney General is that they should make up their minds as to what their powers are, what the justice of the case demands, and then consult an export. Pass the Bill as it stands, and no landlord or tenant, unless inspired with extra wisdom from on high, will be able to understand what his rights are. I will give an example from the first clause—
"References in the principal Act to the First Schedule to that Act shall be construed as references to the First Schedule to this Act."
At the end of the second clause I find these words—
"Subject to any provision contained in any agreement between landlord and tenant the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any arbitration to which this Act applies."
The third clause contains the following—
"Sections twenty-nine, thirty, and thirty-one of the principal Act shall apply to any money paid by or due from a landlord to a tenant as compensation for any improvement comprised in the First Schedule of this Act, Whether the compensation be claimed under this Act or under custom or agreement or otherwise."
348
I do not think anybody can understand that clause without collating all the different Acts. I desire once again to renew the protest I have made many times as to the monstrous abuse perpetrated by one Government after another, perpetrated by one front bench after another, in introducing into the House, and passing by Government majorities, Bills which no human being can understand. It is perfectly outrageous to pass a Bill like this which you cannot understand until you have learned by heart nine other Acts. On a representation being made to the late, Government on the subject, when the Behring Sea Bill was before the House, they embodied all the clauses of other Acts to which the Bill itself alluded. That was reasonable. If the Government had done this now, I should not require to make any reference to this matter. Look at this cryptogram in the tenth section—
"References to the principal Act and to Sections 29, 30, 32, and 34 thereof, shall be construed as references to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883, and to Sections 24, 26, 2o, and 30, thereof, respectively. References to Sections 31 and 39 of the principal Act shall not apply."
One more quotation from the tenth clause—
"A reference to the Arbitration Act, 1899, shall be construed as a reference to the Arbitration (Scotland) Act, 1894, and a reference to the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895, shall be construed as a reference to the Market Gardeners' Compensation (Scotland) Act, 1897."
Clause 9 contains the following—
"References to 'manures' in the principal Act, and this Act shall be construed as references to the improvements numbered twenty-four, twenty-five, and twenty-six, in Part 3 of the First Schedule to this Act."
You have no right to ask this House to spend its time passing solemn Acts of Parliament to which the Royal Assent should be given, and by which the people of this country should be bound, without giving them some chance of understanding what the law is. Many and many a time in this House I have risen to protest against this system of not saying what you moan. Why do you not say what you mean? Are you ashamed to say it? Do you think the House will not accept it? If either of these reasons were true you ought not to introduce the measure. If you are not ashamed of it, if you do understand it, and if you believe the

349
House will adopt it, in God's name state it in plain language. The landlord has got to try to understand the Act; the tenant has got to try to understand the Act; even the unhappy Court of Arbitration has got to try to understand it. Will you give none of them a chance? Are you determined that nobody should know what it is you put into an Act of Parliament? Do let us once for all come to a resolution to bring to an end this mischievous, false, deceitful, and dishonest system of getting the House of Commons to pass clauses in Acts of Parliament which do not say what they mean, which allude to other Acts of Parliament—and not even to them, but only to them with differences, and differences upon differences, and again differences upon those. It is not creditable to Her Majesty's Government, it is not creditable to the House of Commons, and it is not creditable to the country.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEwas understood to express his entire agreement with the complaint of the last speaker. He had no conception until this discussion of the infinite possibilities which lay within the four corners of the Bill under consideration. Apparently a tenant might be entitled to compensation in five different ways in respect of any of the improvements comprised within the schedule to the Bill, and of those improvements there were thirty-four. Each person was to appoint his expert, and these experts were to sit down and endeavour to agree, but if they could not agree absolutely and entirely the matter was to go before the arbitrator. This was simplicity of procedure; this was shortening the deliberations between landlord and tenant at the expiration of a tenancy. This was deliberately put before the House as a means of simplifying the relations between landlord and tenant. Simplicity indeed! One's mind almost reeled at the contemplation of the possible variety of claims that might be put forward in different ways. He preferred the simplicity of the common law, even before the Common Law Procedure Act. He was greatly in favour of anything which would simplify procedure; but there was one thing more desirable than simplicity, and that was certainty. When they were dealing with a multiplicity of facts such as might reasonably arise under the third
350
schedule of the Bill, what possible objection could there be to the arbitrator giving the amount he had arrived at on each item? That would be much more satisfactory than lumping them together and leaving the parties to discover for themselves the compensation awarded in respect of particular items. He did not very much care whether the Bill passed into law or not, but if it did he hoped it would first be amended in several material particulars.
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I have no doubt the Attorney General will suggest that I am somewhat obtuse, but up to the present I have failed to understand the position of Clause 3 and Clause 2. I propose to deal with Clause 3 first. Under that clause the powers of the County Court are to be exercised by the Board of Agriculture, "and' the Board of Agriculture 'accordingly should be substituted for 'County Court' in Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, and 39 of that Act." What I want to understand is how that inquiry is to be dealt with, whether locally, or whether the Board of Agriculture will have a court in London to deal with these questions. While I have every confidence in the President of the Board of Agriculture, I am perfectly confident that, from a legal point of view, that will not prove a satisfactory tribunal, because its decisions will not be properly reviewed by the courts of law. I do not pose as an expert in agricultural holdings, but I do claim to have some knowledge of arbitrations and proceedings in County Courts, and I must say that if there is one way more unsatisfactory than another of obtaining decisions on points of law it is by reference to a County Court. I will give my reasons for that view. In London alone, with which I am more familiar, on the question of the Workmen's Compensation Act, there are two or three County Court Judges who entertain contrary opinions upon particular points in that Act, and one may be fairly clear as to what a variety of decisions there will be if the opinion of County Court Judges is to be taken on these points of law. I venture to say that what the Act of Uniformity deals with in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer about the uses of Sarum, Hereford, and Bangor will certainly be illustrated by a greater number of decisions of, say, the County Courts of Essex,

351
Hereford, or Cornwall. If points of law arise in regard to the wording of any new Act, the proper and only way of securing simplicity and expedition is by referring that point of law not to the County Court of the district, but to the Court of Queen's Bench, and from there, if necessary, to the Court of Appeal. I am astonished that the Attorney General should be satisfied with the suggestion that these arbitrators, these expert persons with every knowledge of agriculture but none of law, should be permitted to state a case. To state a case for a Superior Court is a work of great difficulty. It has to be drawn first by one side, then approved by the other, and finally approved by the person from whose decision the appeal is to be made. What sort of a case will be stated by the ordinary arbitrators in an agricultural district, and in what condition will that case find itself when it goes before the County Court Judge? There is another point to which I should like to draw attention. I am perfectly confident that this House ought not to sanction the abrogration of that portion which under Clause 19 of the old Act of 1883 made it absolutely necessary for the arbitrator to give each of his findings under a specific heading. It has been said that in arbitrations which take place under the ordinary rules of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, or in arbitrations which arise in connection with public improvements, the arbitrator does not give a specific amount under each head of the claim. But if desired the arbitrator, especially if he is not a legal person, always gives those particulars if he is asked to do so by either of the parties to the inquiry. If the law is to be altered, let it be altered with some probability of the law being ascertained not only in a simple and speedy way, but in a satisfactory way. Then, Sit, why should not Sub-section 3 apply to Scotland? I see later on that no portion of the Bill is to apply to Ireland, but I cannot understand why Sub-section 3 is not to apply to Scotland, while it applies to England. The Bill is a most unsatisfactory one in the way in which it deals with other Acts—in citing, repealing, or incorporating them. One of the most painstaking members of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Smith, has complained over and over again of the manner in which Parliament throws at the Judges
352
these Acts with references to a number of other Acts without specifically setting them out. It is not fair to the public, and it is not fair to Her Majesty's Judges. The only thing it does is to make the position of the law utterly impossible for an ordinary person to grasp, and to suggest that an ordinary County Court Judge is to decide points of law under Sub-sections 9 and 10 is a suggestion which might be very well for a political meeting, but it is not worthy of the commonsense or deliberation of this House. I trust that if this Bill is to be persevered with Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to remedy the defects which different hon. Members have pointed out, and which I humbly suggest might be dealt with in a more satisfactory, and certainly in a less complicated, way than they are at present.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I should like to add one word to what has been said with so much point by the lion. Member for King's Lynn, and that is to renew the protest made at an earlier stage of this Bill against the infringement of the principle which has hitherto been observed in this class of legislation of bringing in separate Bills to deal with the case of Scotland. Much of the complexity to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn alluded is traceable to the tact that instead of having a Scotch Bill unending former Scotch Acts dealing with this question, we have our legislation coupled with English legislation on the same subject. I simply wish to renew the complaint with as much emphasis as I san that we have not got legislation more intelligible to the Scotch farmer and more in accordance with Scotch precedent on this question.
*MR. CHANNING: I do not know whether I shall be in order in moving the clause put down by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move the Amendment of another hon. Member; he can move his own.
*MR. CHANGING: Then I will move my own. I will only say it was my

353
intention when I put it clown to put it down with the slight alteration made by the hon. Member for Stratford-upon-Avon in his draft. As it is, I hope, if the House agrees to the Second Heading, that it will be amended in the sense of my hon. and gallant friend. I do not know that this clause needs many words to recommend it to those who have followed the discussion of this question. The matter was brought before the Royal Commission by nearly every practical witness who went into this question. One of the objections raised to this proposal by the President of the Board of Agriculture was the question of expense. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon has received several letters from practical valuers of position in the Midland counties dealing with this question of expense, and I would ask to be permitted to read them to the House. One of these letters is in reply to Colonel Milward, and is as follows—
"In reply to yours of the 18th inst. my own opinion is that the records of farms can be taken at the time the valuation is made, that the charge should be £2 2s. for 100 acres, £3 3s. for 200 acres, £4 4s. for 400 acres, and so on. This would not be a great charge; you can say a minimum charge of £2 2s., and £1 for every 100 acres after the first 100."
Another letter from a Warwickshire valuer says—
"I wired you this morning 'Charges for 100 acres two guineas, 300 acres four guineas.' I do not consider the fee named should prevent its being carried, as such a procedure must be mutual to landlord and tenant. I have not consulted any other valuers as to foes; these are my ideas only."
Then from a Worcestershire valuer—
" I have no doubt valuers will be found who will survey holdings on the fees you mention. I should say, in most cases, it will be done by the landlord or his agent and the incoming tenant themselves, If the Act is passed I should make it part of the terms of letting a farm in our agency that we agree on a statement as to present state of cultivation, etc."
The next is from a Hereford valuer—
"Thanks very much for the Agricultural Holdings Act and Amendments. I have carefully read them through, and I think your clause as regards a record of the condition of the holding a most important and necessary addition. I have for some years on one estate been in the habit of noting in the agreement the state of cultivation at time of entry, which I have found most useful. I also number their gates on the plan, and keep note of what is done to them by a new tenant. It is on very few properties that I have had to do with that any sort of record of cultivation is made, and I think it would save very much trouble to
354
arbitrators and save endless disputes if such a proceeding was made compulsory. As to the fees you name, I think they are reasonable and fair. It is so often said by tenants, 'When I entered my hedges were not trimmed, my ditches were all blocked up, the house drainage was choked, the pump was practically worn out, the boilers were cracked.' After a man has been in a farm twelve or fifteen years it is forgotten, if ever noted, what a farm was like, and if such a record as you propose is made compulsory, and is to form part of the agreement it will be a grand thing for all concerned."
He then gives a schedule showing how he would propose to carry out his idea. I thought, as my hon. and gallant friend furnished me with these letters, I might lay them before the House as practical evidence in support of this clause. My own view has always been that it was a proposal as to the practical machinery of which we should consult and rely upon the opinions of practical men. It seems to me that it will be of the greatest possible advantage to the valuer to have some such record. I think, as has been mentioned in one of the letters I have read, the matter could be dealt with in a very short and clear form, and would certainly lead to the elimination of many causes of dispute between landlord and tenant, because the details could be easily comprehended by both parties, and disputes could be settled reasonably and amicably. This mode of procedure can be carried out without entailing extravagant expenditure on either party, and would be a valuable addition to the Bill. I hope, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept this clause.
New clause—
"Every contract of tenancy entered into after the commencement of this Act shall contain a scheduled record of the agricultural condition of the holding and its several parts, and of the buildings, fences, roads, and drains at the beginning of the contract of tenancy. At any time during a tenancy existing at the commencement of this Act, either party may require a record in similar form to be made by an arbitrator. Copies of all such records shall be deposited in the office of the registrar of the county court, and either party shall be entitled to inspect the same at all reasonable times, and to take copies thereof."—(Mr. Channing.)
—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*MR. LONG: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press

355
his Amendment, because there is really no such agreement among us as he imagines, even as to the theoretical advantages which would arise from a system of this kind. The question which will present itself to every hon. Member is whether it is just to make such a record compulsory on the landlord and the tenant. Whatever such a record would cost—whether the expense would be small, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, or whether it would be large—it would have to be borne not only by the party requiring it, but also by the other. I can conceive that a record carefully and exhaustively made would be of some value, but I confess I heard with surprise the hon. Gentleman's statement that the cost would only be £2 2s. per hundred acres. That strikes me as a very moderate charge if the work is efficiently done, but it seems to me rather a loose way of describing the charge likely to be made. A great deal would depend of course on whether the hundred acres were lying together, or were in separate lots, or if they were composed of the same kind of land or not. Then, again, two guineas may be a reasonable charge for a hundred acres, but if the same amount were charged for thirty acres or forty acres it would, I submit, not be a reasonable charge, and if reasonable in one case it would be excessive in the other. There is nothing to prevent either the landlord or the tenant having a record made; but, without knowing either the form of the record or its cost, I think it would not be desirable to make it compulsory, and under these circumstances I hope the House will not assent to the clause.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I hope my hon. friend will press this clause, as it seems to me an extremely valuable one. The objections of the President of the Board of Agriculture are more objections in Committee than objections on the Second Beading. If this Bill is going to be valuable at all it will only be so because it lays down a model form of agreement between landlord and tenant, and if anything tends more effectively than another to soothe the feelings between landlord and tenant at the termination of a tenancy, it is that there should be as few disputes as possible on the question of compensation. In nine cases out of ten the tenancy has lasted for a great number of years. The
356
tenant will tell you that when he went into the farm it was in a state of general neglect, that the fences were broken down and the drains choked up. Then, on the other hand, the landlord will be equally convinced that the farm was in a thoroughly satisfactory condition when the tenant entered it, and who, in the circumstances, can decide between them? The establishment of a record of this kind has the approval of very many eminent agriculturists. I may mention that many years ago it was warmly advocated by a man whom many hon. Members will remember, Mr. Albert Pell, who was one of the most practical agriculturists of this generation. He went even so far as to suggest photographs to show the condition, of the fences, but that is a counsel of perfection which I certainly should not cave to insist upon. At all events, a record as to the condition of a farm when a tenant enters it can be easily and, I venture to say, cheaply made. In a farm of any considerable size it would be made as a matter of course by the agents and the incoming tenant. As a matter of fact they do now go over the farms in most cases, and the landlord or the agent tells the tenant what he is prepared to do. Where would be the difficulty in putting such a statement into the form of a record, with a few additional particulars regarding the condition of the fences, roads, drains, etc.? I am convinced that the adoption of this clause will tend very greatly to improve the working of the Bill, and I heartily support it.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY: If Her Majesty's Government make no concession on the point I raised at the beginning of the discussion, namely, that the arbitrator should give details of his award, I certainly shall vote with the hon. Gentleman. At present, in many cases, when a tenant gives up his farm the arbitrator decides the amount to be paid to the landlord for dilapidation or waste, and that money is expended in repairing the holding and the farm house. It is impossible for anyone to learn in what state the holding was left by the outgoing tenant, unless it be plainly stated by the arbitrator on what grounds his arbitration is based. Unless some concession is given on this point, I shall certainly support the clause.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I trust my hon. friend will press this clause. The present method of ascertaining the condition of a holding seems to me to be extremely unsatisfactory, and to be done in a merely mechanical manner. What the farmer wants is that the farm should be judged by its general condition and by its fertility, which depends on continuous good husbandry. That is a very delicate matter to decide, and after a period of years it is almost impossible to ascertain what was the condition of the farm when the tenant went into it. This Amendment will be not only useful but also economical, because it will prevent disputes. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill objects to this clause because it is obligatory, but my hon. friend has stated that he will be willing to accept the wording of the clause which stands first on the Paper, and which is entirely permissive, leaving the tenant to ask for a record or not as he likes. Of course, if he asks for it he will have to pay for it. That would get rid not only of the objection that the clause is obligatory, but also of the objection with regard to the cost. The difficulty is that almost all valuers are regarded as either landlords' men or tenants' men, and what we want is impartial men appointed as permanent officials who would be very careful not to lean either to one side or the other. The foe should be a moderate one, and a very small payment would enable this valuable record to be made.
*SIR JOHN KINLOCHthought that this clause was quite unnecessary. It was a clause to defend landlords. They, the landlords, were perfectly able to defend themselves. In all
their leases the objects of this clause were taken notice of except the agricultural condition of the holding. The criterion by which they could judge that was the sum paid to the outgoing tenant for compensation. All the other things, such as buildings and drains, were guarded in the lease. From the tenants' point of view, it would be most objectionable to have a fussy landlord or factor coming in every year to make a record.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEpointed out that in this clause no provision was made as to who was to make this scheduled record, and there was nothing as to who should pay for it. The parties might not be able to agree, and no provision was made for a third party. The tenant had ample opportunities of looking into all the matters raised by this clause, and of gauging the agricultural condition of his holding and of seeing what the conditions of the buildings were. The clause provided that—
"At any time during a tenancy existing at the commencement of this Act, either party may require a record in similar form to be made by an arbitrator."
There was no suggestion there as to who was to appoint the arbitrator or who was to pay him. He did not think this matter had been sufficiently considered by the hon. Member who moved the clause. He certainly thought that the clause as drafted was absolutely unworkable, and would operate to the disadvantage both of the landlord and the tenant.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 46; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 168.)

AYES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Murnaghan, George

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Dowd, John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hutton, John (Vorks, N.R.)

O'Keefe, Francis Arthur

Broadhurst, Henry

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Price, Robert John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd)

Reckitt, Harlod James

Caldwell, James

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Richardson, J. (Durham S. E.)

Cawley, Frederick

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Daly James

Macaleese, Daniel

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dalziel, James Henry

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Doogan, P. C.

M'Ghee, Richard

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Evershed, Sydney

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wedderburn, Sir William

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfld)

Mr. Channing and Mr. Humphreys-Owen.

Williams, John Carvell (Nobts.)

Woods, Samuel

NOES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Arrol, Sir William

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pollock Harry Frederick

Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balcarres, Lord

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pretyman, Ernest George

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Hardy, Laurence

Purvis, Robert

Banbury, Frederick George

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Scale-

Rankin, Sir James

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Heath, James

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Henderson, Alexander

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Bethell, Commander

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Rentoul, James Alexander

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Richards, Henry Charles

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W

Brassey Albert

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Johnston William (Belfast)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sandon, Viscount

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Keswick, William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Chamberlain J. A. (Worcester)

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

Charrington, Spencer

Lafone, Alfred

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Strauss, Arthur

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cubitt, Hon Henry

Lowe, Francis William

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Thornton, Percy M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Tollemache, Henry James

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir Wm. H.

Maclure, Sir John William

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Warde, Lieut.-Col C. E. (Kent)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E)

Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Tauntn)

Faber, George Denison

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Finch, George H.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Bir.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Fisher, William Hayes

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

FitzGerald, Sir R, Penrose-

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Mon'mthsh)

Wodehouse, Rt Hon E. R. (Bath)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morrell, George Herbert

Wylie, Alexander

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Wyndham, George

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Flower, Ernest

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Nicholson, William Graham

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Galloway, William Johnson

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

Gedge, Sydney

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Sir William Walrond and

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Mr. Anstruther.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

It being after Midnight, further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.

EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; Bill read the third time and passed.
Adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
Rochdale Corporation.
Oldham Corporation.
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
West Ham Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee Tomorrow.
WOLVERHAMPTON, ESSINGTON, AND CANNOCK CHASE JUNCTION RAILWAY HILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL
    GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 17th and 25th of May last discharged; and Bill committed.
    BEDFORD GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.
BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.

    CITY OF LONDON ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
    WOODBRIDGE DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

    VALE OF RHEIDOL LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
    Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Strand District Board of Works. Leave given to present the said Petition.
    BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
NEATH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
HOYLAKE AND WEST KIRBY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION MARKET BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.

    SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
    BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
    ILFRACOMBE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz:—

    E. Abingdon.

    E. Rosse (chairman).

    L. Sherborne.

    L. Calthorpe.

    L. Clonbrock;

    agreed to: and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Eleven o'clock, and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to Order). Amendments made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendment considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 151.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Return respecting (laid before the House on Friday last), to be printed. (No. 149.)
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING OF GIRLS.
  Report to the Local Government Board on the industrial training of girls in the separate and district schools in the Metropolitan District, by Miss Ina Stansfeld, assistant inspector.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Return for the month of November, 1899.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  Report of the Board for the year to 31st March, 1900.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered, to lie on the Table.

  RATEABLE PROPERTY(ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of 3rd August, last), and to be printed. (No. 150.)

  MILITIA BALLOT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, some years ago I had the honour of dining at the Royal Academy, and a very distinguished literary man was called upon to respond to the toast of "Literature." He began by asking, "What is literature?" That rather alarmed his audience, but I hope your Lordships will not be alarmed if I also preface the remarks which I propose to make upon the Militia Ballot Bill of the Government by asking, "What is conscription?" It is absolutely necessary, in considering this question of the Militia Ballot, that we should come to a clear understanding as to what conscription means, because the word is constantly misapplied. Strange to say,, those whom one would think would understand this question best are often those who misapply it most, and it really looks, as if they do so purposely in order to give the Ballot a bad name, and make it stink. in the nostrils of the people.. Let me take my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire. He is head of the Defence Committee, and. is certainly a man who ought to know what conscription means, and yet at a, dinner in honour of Mr. Balfour he made a speech in which he said: "Lord Wemyss.

  189
  wishes the Government to bring in a drastic measure of conscription." Now, my Lords, the last thing in the world that I wish to see established is conscription in the rightful sense of the term. It is not conscription that I want, but the ballot. Then, again, the noble Duke spoke of a "drastic measure," but the Bill of the Government, the Second Reading of which I have the high privilege of moving, is, I consider, far too drastic, and, although I trust your Lordships will read it a second time, it will have to be considerably modified in Committee. What is conscription? Conscription means that every male inhabitant of a country is compulsorily obliged to join the army of that country, and is liable in youth and early manhood, and until well on in years, to be called to arms. It is said that this system is un-English, but that is not the case. So far from being un-English, conscription in the strongest and most complete sense of the word was the system by which in the early days of English history our armies were formed. It was a conscript army that won the glorious victories of Crecy and Poitiers in the time of Edward III. Therefore conscription is not un-English in reality, because it was, as I have said, a system by which our armies were raised in the early history of our country. This system, while it has fallen into desuetude in this country, has been taken up on the Continent. It was first taken up at the end of the Eighteenth Century in France, where, I believe, it was introduced by Marshal Jourdain, and now we see the system ruling throughout the Continent from the White Sea to the Mediterranean, and from the Ural Mountains to the Straits of Dover. Yes, to the Straits of Dover, and that makes all the difference. Were it not for what Cromwell called "that ditch," and what Mr. Gladstone called the "silver streak," every one of your Lordships must admit that we, too, in this country should, like our neighbours, be under a system of complete conscription. But this "ditch" is not absolutely to be trusted. Cromwell nearly 250 years ago warned the Englishmen of his day against trusting absolutely to it. He said, "Unless you can supplement your ships with men on horseback and men on foot you will not be safe." And 200 years later—fifty years ago—Lord Palmerston, speaking in the other House in favour of the resuscitation of
  190
  the Militia, used very much the same language. He spoke of the necessity of resuscitating the Militia in order that we should be strong at home and be able to prevent the landing of hostile troops upon our shores, and said it was madness to trust to the navy alone, and all history showed—especially our own—how readily countries could be invaded. Everyone must feel that we should have a strong force at home, though not through conscription. My noble friend the Prime Minister, is, I notice, rather amused when the word "conscription" is mentioned, and yet he is the only public man I know of who has advocated conscription. He may, perhaps, be surprised to hear me say so; but the noble Marquess told the Primrose League that we must have for the defence of this country rifle clubs on the Swiss model. Now, what is the Swiss model? It is the most stringent conscription of any in Europe. Every man there, from youth to old age, is conscribed, and has to take up arms whenever required. My noble friend would himself escape, but in advocating that system he is hard upon his colleagues, for under it even the noble Duke the head of the Defence Committee and the Secretary of State for War would have to shoulder their muskets, learn the goose step, and, as a result of this war, learn also to burrow like rats and rabbits in the earth. But if we have not conscription we have, thanks to that "ditch," a military system which I hold to be admirably suited to our insular and Imperial position; and the foundation of that system is the Militia, which, according to the law of the land which is annually suspended, is properly raised by compulsion. By means of the Militia Ballot the right of the Crown is exercised to the military service of its subjects for home defence. What I want to consider is, what is the view and what has been the action of the Government with reference to the Militia ballot, which, as I have said, is the main principle of our military system, and upon which the defence of this country is supposed to rest? In an excellent pamphlet which has been sent to me, called "A Strong Army in a Free State," written by Mr. Coulton, there is a quotation from a speech of my noble friend the Prime Minister, delivered on 20th February this year. My noble friend is supposed to have said, with reference to the Militia

  191
  ballot and the discussion in this House upon it, that "we were wandering on unknown ground"; and in the same chapter I find that the Under Secretary of State for War is quoted as having in another place alluded to "conscription and military ballot, and other such new devices." Let us for a moment survey the "unknown ground." to which my noble friend refers. It was on this "unknown ground "that our forefathers stood at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the Militia and other Forces were gathered together to resist the invasion which was then threatening. Out of that "unknown ground" sprang those Militia regiments which my noble friend Lord Blythswood referred to as being of such great service in the early part of the century, and which were referred to by the Duke of Wellington—when backing up the Militia Bill of 1852—in the highest possible terms. So much for this "unknown ground" on which we are wandering. I now come to the "new devices." They were in full operation in the early part of the last century. They found a place in the Militia Act of 1852, and these "new devices" of the Under Secretary for War, namely, the ballot, formed an integral part of the army reform proposals of Lord Cardwell in 1870. But all this is a matter of history. Let us come down to the present time, and see what the action of the Secretary of State for War has been in reference to the question of the Militia ballot, this "new device." In 1898 the subject was under the consideration of your Lordships' House, and my noble friend said that, though the country was not prepared for the ballot, it was a valuable power to have in hand, having regard to possible emergencies, and one he would not readily part with. Then the noble Marquess went on to say that legislation would be necessary, for the system was obsolete, the machinery would not work, and required to be amended and brought, to use his own words, up to date. Then in the following year the Secretary of State for War brought in a Bill, the Second Reading of which I am about to move, to make the ballot available. In 1899 this Bill lay on the Table of the House, and, as the House was told in 1898, it was meant to meet emergencies. The year 1900 was an annus mirabilis of emergencies, and yet the Bill was left derelict by its author, the Secretary of
  192
  State for War. I found it comatose, a foundling, on the steps of the War Office, and I have simply substituted my name on the back of it for that of the Secretary of State for War. The Bill was brought in to meet emergencies, but the Government have done what I venture to think no Government to my knowledge ever did before. I have been in Parliament since 1841, and I recollect no precedent for the course the Government have followed in introducing a measure which they said was of vital importance, and then issuing a whip to secure its rejection. That is what Her Majesty's Government have done in this case. We have read during this war of President Steyn sjamboking Boers who would not fight, but here we have a case of the Government sjamboking their party in order to induce them to throw out their own Bill. This is a policy which the ordinary Cross Bench mind cannot exactly understand. Possibly my noble friend may say there is no emergency. Why, we hear of nothing else but "emergency." Every measure that is brought in is an "emergency measure." You have emergency armies and emergency expenditure. Emergency camps have been formed for Volunteers, with emergency allowances for the wives and children of Volunteers attending camp. While this is the position, I cannot but think that "evasion" more aptly than "emergency" describes the Government measures and actions; for, instead of doing what they should do, instead of enforcing the existing system, they evade it, and by a Bill which was brought before the House a few days ago they will do much to destroy the Volunteer force by dividing it into two classes. Men who went into the force for home defence simply are now invited to become a sort of appendage, a sort of tail, to the different regiments of the Army, and in the result, when the excitement is over and has passed away, it will be found that a great evil has been done to the Volunteer force by dividing it into two classes—into "go-and-fights" and "stay-at-homes." I am sorry that the noble Viscount the Commander-in-Chief is absent from the House, as he generally is when an Army Bill is under discussion. I do not like to refer to a man's words in his absence, but he was reported to have said a few days ago at a Volunteer dinner that he hoped that in future a company of Volunteers would be attached in time of

  193
  war to every regiment of the Line. I hope not. If they are, the Volunteer force will, I fear, cease to be a permanent institution in our military system such as it ought to be. The Government, instead of enforcing and perfecting the old military system, have thus, as regards the Volunteers, destroyed it. When my noble friend the Secretary of State for War laid his Bill on the Table in 1899 there was no emergency, all was quiet; but since then war has arisen, the "emergency" is there. Why then does he not proceed with his Militia Ballot "Emergency" Bill? The answer is plain—a dissolution, not in sight in 1899, is, we are told, not far distant now. There is nothing in what I am saying that should offend the Government, because we are perpetually reminded by them that the Militia Bill is most unpopular, and that the nation hates the idea of conscription and all that sort of thing. Now, my Lords, is this the case? The Government, in their emergency measures, are trading on the patriotism of Volunteers, begging them to become soldiers, but they absolutely ignore the patriotism of the country, and they say that the people of this country would not stand the existing law being put in force even for the defence of their hearths and homes. I am sure that is a libel on the people of this country, and that any Government which had the courage and manliness to speak out and submit this modified form of service for home defence only, would meet with ready response. I may be wrong, but that is my conviction. For nearly forty years I have been working and agitating this question, and wherever I have spoken in any public place of the desirability of having a modified form of compulsory service for home defence, I have met with unanimous support. Such was the view of a meeting of artisans on the Shaftesbury Estate, whom I addressed in 1875, on the occasion of their forming a Volunteer company. And how do we stand in the year 1900? What is the feeling on the subject at the present moment on the part of what I may call the intelligent portion of the community? Here I can speak with accurate data, for I hold in my hand a circular which was addressed to Lords Lieutenant, High Sheriffs, chairmen of quarter sessions, chairmen and vice-chairmen of county councils, mayors, provosts, and presi-
  194
  dents of chambers of commerce and of chambers of agriculture. This circular contained two questions, the first being as regards our present military system—
  "Are you of opinion that such a state of things should be allowed to continue; and that the safety of the United Kingdom—and all that implies—should be dependent upon the patriotic, self-sacrificing action of a half-rained Volunteer force—held subject only to fourteen days' notice to quit?"
  There were 353 replies to that question, in 75 per cent. of which the answer was. "no." The circular proceeded to explain what the Militia Ballot was and how it might be applied—not in the drastic form proposed in my noble friend's Bill, but in a modified form. It was suggested that the Ballot law would be sufficient for its purpose if modified, so that instead of applying to all men between eighteen and thirty-five (as the law now stands) it would be sufficient that once in a man's life, on attaining the age of nineteen or twenty, he should have to take his chance of the Ballot, and, if struck, serve for say two years in the Militia and say seven in the Militia Reserve. The second question asked was—
  "Are you of opinion that such a modified form of compulsory service, with the above exemptions, for Home Defence only is right and reasonable, and ought to be readily accepted by the people?"
  Out of the 353 replies the majority was two to one in favour of such modified form of compulsory service. Therefore I believe that all this talk about the unpopularity of the Militia Ballot for service at home is all rubbish. If we could only get a Government—I have not seen one yet—who had the courage to state their convictions, how much stronger they would be! I am perfectly certain that if your Lordships simply followed the dictates of your inner consciousness you could not but give a similar answer to that which has been given by all the authorities in the counties and towns of Great Britain to whom I have referred. I therefore trust that—sjambok or no sjambok—your Lordships will support the Second Reading of this Bill, and in supporting it remember this, that you are not voting for the application of the ballot. You are only voting for what the Secretary of State told us two years ago was essential—namely, that this Power, which has become obsolete and out of date, should be brought into working order. That is all this Bill does, and I dare denial on that point.

  195
  Although the times may not be alarming they are anxious, and I will tell your Lordships why. When some six or eight months ago I was advocating and pressing upon my noble friend the Secretary of State for War the advisability of having a Volunteer Reserve—an ideal thing, which they have actually botched at the War Office by the way they have dealt with it—I received a letter from an English military attaché abroad. He said in his letter:—
  "I am glad to see you are agitating for a Volunteer Reserve, for, believe me, it is essential that England should be invulnerable and strong in the month of November."
  The Paris Exhibition will then be over, and I have heard that the Naval authorities in the Mediterranean hold absolutely the same opinion. I pass from this military attaché to a greater authority, and I read in a remarkable speech, that was made not long ago, this sentence—
  "It is not necessarily because in themselves they are more important, but if you look round you you will see that the elements and causes of menace and peril are, though slowly, accumulating, and may accumulate to such a point as to require our most earnest and active effort to repel them."
  Those are the words of the Prime Minister addressing the Primrose League. Then on 12th February my noble friend Lord Kimberley, who is so much respected in this House, and who always talks the very best and soundest sense, said—
  "All around us there was a temper displayed by our neighbours which should make everyone pause and reflect upon the position in which we find ourselves."
  Therefore, you have these great authorities saying that if this is not a time of peril it is a time of anxiety; and no man with his eyes and ears open, and knowing anything of the state of things as regards our armaments, can fail to see that it is desirable that England should be strong at all times, because, if she is strong her Foreign Minister is powerful for good, and if weak he is not. I venture to hope that something will be done to strengthen our home defence, and I would appeal to the independence and patriotism of your Lordships to cast aside all personal and party considerations and vote for what you conscientiously believe to be right and necessary in this matter. If you think that our military system requires that the Bill should be passed I trust you will vote freely and boldly for it. The safety of the nation should be taken out
  196
  of the domain of party. Foreign affairs and Imperial questions are in the main so dealt with. But where would these be—where would the Empire itself be if it is weak at the heart and we are vulnerable at home?
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  EARL COWPER: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend need have wasted any words in urging us to consider this question not from a party point of view, but from the point of view of the interests of the country. I am sure we shall all do that. For my own part, I have never, even in former days, been in any way taken with the idea of compulsory service, however small or however large. I will not stop to draw the line of difference between conscription and ballot and the present Bill; they each depend, to a larger or less degree, on compulsion, and we have always looked upon compulsion in this country as a thing not to be resorted to unless it can be proved to be absolutely necessary. If such has been my opinion till now, I cannot say that the events—the momentous events—of the past year—one of the most trying years we have ever gone through—have in the least degree altered my opinion. The one thing that is looked upon with most satisfaction at home, and which foreign nations cannot help admiring, is the magnificent way in which last December, when the country was in difficulties, and serious complications with foreign countries were possible, the whole nation rose to the occasion. All classes of the community volunteered for service, and it was felt that if ten times the number of Volunteers were wanted, ten times the number would be forthcoming. Not only the upper and the lower classes, who have always fought for their country, but also the great middle class, who are, generally speaking, left out in the cold because they furnish neither officers nor men, proved that they, too, were endowed with patriotic feeling and were ready to die for their country. With such an exhibition before us of the facilities for getting Volunteers whenever we want them there is less reason than ever for resorting to compulsion in order to fill up our ranks, and I think it would be almost a slight upon these gallant men to im-

  197
  mediately bring in a Bill for compulsion. My noble friend has endeavoured to draw a distinction between defensive and offensive operations. I do not think he would mind having conscription for all purposes, but he does not press for that; he only proposes conscription for the defence of the country. But is it for home defence that we are most likely to want men? In all that has been written and said on the defence of our shores in case of invasion, those have had the best of the argument who have affirmed that as long as we have the command of the sea—and we all admit that when we once lose the command of the sea we are altogether done for—or, at any rate, as long as no other country has command of the sea, it will be absolutely impossible to land an army of any appreciable size upon our chores. I will not press that point, because I know it is disputed, and it is said that we must have something else to fall back upon. Behind the Navy we have our troops and Militia at home, and an excellent and glorious force of Volunteers, which has now attained to such perfection and numbers—so many thousands of men—a force which the Government have expressed their intention of endeavouring, if possible, to increase and to bring to an even higher state of efficiency. That force must, on the whole—in spite of the Bill to which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches so much objected, and which I supported the other night and see no harm in—be a defensive force, because nine-tenths of the Volunteers have no intention whatever of ever going outside the country, and enlist entirely for purposes of defence. It appears to me that where we might be in difficulties is not in defending our own shores, but in defending our world-wide Empire beyond the seas. We may have to send troops at any moment to any part of the world; and in that matter this Bill will not help us in the smallest degree. If we are to have conscription, let us have it for what we want it for, and not for what we do not want it for. If the Government, after carefully considering the whole position, were to bring forward a scheme of this kind, I should say that we were bound to support it whatever our individual feelings may be. But the Government do not want this scheme, and for the House of Lords to try and force it upon them is preposterous. The only excuse there can be for passing
  198
  this Bill is that it does not much matter what opinion we express in the House of Lords; but I think we ought always to keep before ourselves the idea—the imaginary idea if you like to put it so—that if we vote for a thing it will have some effect. I consider that the only effect this would have, if acted upon, would be a bad effect, and, if not acted upon, it would bring the House into disrepute. I hope that my noble friend will not press for a division, but if he does I trust your Lordships will throw the Bill out by a substantial majority.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have sat for such a short time in this House that it may be thought unfitting that I should express astonishment at anything that occurs here; but I must own that I am filled not with astonishment but with amazement at the conduct of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War. Last year the noble Marquess presented a Bill which was identically the same as the Bill brought in by my noble friend Lord Wemyss; he argued in favour of his Bill to the best of his ability, and now we are asked, I might almost say we are driven down to the House and ordered, to vote against it. I fancy I am not wrong in assuming that this is a very unusual circumstance in your Lordships' House. I do not know what arguments the noble Marquess is going to employ to-day, but if I chose I could adduce very strong arguments in favour of the Bill now being discussed by merely quoting from the noble Marquess's speech of last year. I will, however, content myself by saying that, having had an opportunity of considering the Government's proposals for home defence and the proposal which has been made by the noble Earl, I emphatically prefer the latter. I do not wish to do the noble Marquess any injustice, because I am sure everyone will admit that he has had the interests of his Department at heart as much as, if not more than, any of this predecessors. But the Government's proposals, for which he is responsible, are based upon conjecture, upon invitation, upon appeals, and upon the somewhat artless assumption that the present military enthusiasm will last indefinitely. Nothing new is suggested, except it be the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the ladies of the Primrose League should under take the defence of the country. At all events, the proposal of

  199
  the noble Earl has the merit of being a definite, a practical, and, to my mind, a sound proposal. There is, I presume, no doubt as to the value of our Militia. I take it that one of the lessons of the present war has been to demonstrate that after the Regular Army the Militia is much the most valuable asset we possess. Although considerably below its strength the Militia has been able to provide between 20,000 and 30,000 men for South Africa. Those battalions, if I mistake not, went out as separate units under their own officers. Could the other branches of the Auxiliary Forces have done the same? It is perfectly clear that they could have done nothing of the kind. The Volunteers cannot be compared to the Militia in regard to value, and under those circumstances one would have supposed that the Government would have welcomed any opportunity for increasing so valuable a force. Instead of that we are asked to vote against the rational and common-sense proposal of the noble Earl. This is not the first time that this proposal has been discussed during the present session, and we are familiar with the arguments made use of against it. The last time the subject was discussed the noble Marquess the Prime Minister said he had heard that there was a possibility of the youth of this country flying in shoals from our shores and taking refuge in America and elsewhere, where conscription did not prevail. The Secretary of State did not go so far as that. He held that it would be extremely unwise to make any radical changes in our military system until after the war was over; but the long and the short of those arguments was that the country would not stand such a measure. What steps have been taken to ascertain the opinion of the country in this respect? How can the noble Marquess or anyone else know that the country will not stand it? My firm belief is that if the proposal had been made when the House met it would not have been discounted by the electors, but would have been recognised as a more or less painful necessity. Of course if the proposals in this Bill are described in exaggerated language, and unfair comparisons with conscription as it prevails in foreign countries are made, it is not unnatural that the proposals should be unpopular; but the noble Earl does not suggest the expatriation of the
  200
  British youth to Wei-hai-wei, Fashoda, or the other side of the globe. His. proposal simply is that a limited portion of the population should ballot, and, if the worst comes to the worst, should be called upon to do some eight or nine months military training in the course of their lives. This extremely modified form of compulsion is generally denounced as "un-English." I have but a vague idea of the meaning of that word, but I suppose it means something discreditable-All I can say is that it is very much more discreditable that by far the greater portion of the able bodied men in this country should deliberately shirk their duty as citizens, and that of the male population between the ages of twenty-five and forty not one in ten should discharge the most elementary form of military duty. This is the result of strict adherence—I might almost say slavish adherence—to the Volunteer system. My chief objection to the Government emergency scheme is that it merely amplifies and exaggerates this unsatisfactory and antiquated system. The Government's proposals really amount to this, that the miserably small minority who are now taking the burden of national defence on their shoulders are to do double as much, treble as much, four times as much as they have in the past. I am not ashamed to admit that in common with the noble Earl I feel that one of the first duties of the citizen of a civilised state is to take some share in defending his home and property, and I would go as far as to say that in my view this obligation is almost as great as the obligation to pay rates and taxes. There is, at all events, one point on which both parties will agree, and that is that we ought to show to the world that there is nothing to be gained by attacking us; but we are doing precisely the reverse. Every day we see our responsibilities and our liabilities increase, although I believe that when Ministers come into office they are determined that, as far as they are concerned, not one inch shall be added to the Empire. I have no doubt that when he took office in 1880 Mr. Gladstone never, in his wildest dreams, thought that he would saddle this country with the occupation of Egypt and the Soudan. I doubt also whether the noble Marquess thought he would find it necessary to annex the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, or to enter upon a Chinese expedition. Yet this is what is happening. Every day we see

  201
  our Empire increasing, and the chance of hostilities with our neighbours increasing also. For my part I intend to support the Bill, because it seems to me to be contrary to common sense not to adjust our military system in accordance with the conditions of the times. I do not for a moment anticipate that the noble Earl will be successful, but I would urge upon him, although it is quite unnecessary for me to do so, that even if he should be defeated to-day, he should continue putting forward his project, in season and out of season, until more rational views prevail.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have had occasion to address your Lordships not infrequently upon this subject, and I think I can certainly trust my memory when I say that on no one of those occasions have I ever objected to the proposal of the noble Earl on the ground that there was anything un English about the ballot; nor was anything of the sort suggested by my noble friend who sits behind me. My noble friend recommended your Lordships not to vote for the motion, on the ground that it was inopportune at the present time; and the question is, are we justified, situated as we are at present, in adopting this proposal? It is, of course, for your Lordships to decide how you will deal with the measure; but, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I claim that it is for us to say whether we think this Bill should be persevered with at the present time, and I trust that that issue will not be obscured by the eloquence and the epigrams of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, The noble Earl gave to the House what purported to be an historical account of the origin of the Bill; but it was not a complete account. May I remind your Lordships of the origin of the Bill and of the manner in which the question has been dealt with by Her Majesty's Government? In the year 1898, when the noble Earl brought the matter to your Lordships' attention, I admitted to him and to your Lordships that, in my opinion, the existence of the Militia ballot was of vital importance to the military system of this country. I said that nothing would induce me to part with that great reserve of power; and I also added that the machinery of the ballot was, in my belief, of a more or
  202
  less obsolete character and required revision. I therefore promised to have that machinery examined, and if the result of that examination justified such a course, to introduce a Bill; but I remember distinctly saying—and that is the chapter of history the noble Earl left out—that her Majesty's Government were not to be understood as pledging themselves either to have recourse to the ballot or to pass a ballot Bill through the Houses of Parliament in that or any other session. I kept my promise. The machinery of the ballot was examined,, and the result of the examination went to show that it was by no means so obsolete or unintelligible as had been supposed; and in 1899 I introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House. It has been suggested by the noble Lord who spoke last that we have changed our minds. I say we have not changed, our minds. We have laid a Bill on the Table in order that your Lordships might see the form it would take should legislation become necessary, but there never was any announcement of an intention to pass that measure, and there consequently never was an abandonment of such an intention. Then, at the beginning of this session, in the month of February, the noble Earl came down to your Lordships' House and proclaimed the existence of an emergency and called upon us to introduce the ballot. It is true that on the very evening on which the discussion took place he altered the terms of his motion, but we all remember his speech. It proceeded much on the lines of that to which we have just listened, and it was clearly an appeal to the House to decide that for the purpose of meeting the immediate military necessities of this country we should resort to the ballot. On this occasion the noble Earl has appropriated our Bill, and has asked your Lordships to read it a second time, but he has done so with a remarkable expression of his own opinion. He has circulated a paper in which he tells us that enlightened, patriotic public opinion is prepared to accept—what? Not the Bill of Her Majesty's Government, which he is now moving, but another Bill enacting a, modified form of compulsory Militia service, as described in an accompanying Paper. When we turn to the accompanying Paper we find a measure sketched out entirely different from that introduced by Her Majesty's Government last year. It

  203
  is a measure based on the assumption that every man in this kingdom at the age of nineteen or twenty is to take his chance in the ballot to serve two years in the Militia, and perhaps seven years in the Militia Reserve. It is a totally different Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: It is much more moderate.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Possibly—but it is totally different in principle. But that is not the only point on which the conduct of the noble Earl seems to be somewhat remarkable. The matter was, in his belief, one of extreme urgency in February last. We are now in July. During that long interval the noble Earl has been marking time, and now, after six months, he produces a Bill, not the Bill he would like to see in the statute book, but a Bill which, according to his own showing, does not meet the requirements of the situation. I submit there are two questions which, as practical men of business, we have to consider. The first is—is there the remotest chance of passing this Bill into law during the present session? I cannot conceive that any one will say there is any such chance. The other question is this—supposing that you were to press it through both Houses, would it help you in the least to meet that emergency upon the gravity of which the noble Earl has dwelt in such forcible terms? Your Lordships should clearly understand that the noble Earl advocates this Bill as an improvement upon, or as a substitute for, the emergency measures of Her Majesty's Government; and I say fearlessly that, if his measure or our measures deserve to be characterised by the epithet which he bestowed upon our measures the other evening, it is his measure and not the measures to which we have had recourse. How long would it take the noble Earl, supposing this Bill were to pass, to raise 20,000, or 30,000, or 40,000 men for the Militia? How long would it take him to arm them, to equip them, to provide them with the necessary officers, and to incorporate them in our military cadres? I venture to think that months would pass before a single man, under the measure which the noble Earl has advocated, would be fit to be placed in the fighting line. The noble Earl has ridiculed the measures of Her Majesty's
  204
  Government, and I do not think they were spoken of very respectfully by the noble Lord who spoke from the back benches (Lord Newton). The noble Earl suggested that everything depends upon the strength of our home defences. The noble Lord on the back benches said that all our measures have rested upon conjecture.
  LORD NEWTON: So they have.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I differ entirely. Take the Royal Reserve battalions. We have got at this moment over 20,000 men, whom I will not describe, but as to whom I should like to quote a sentence from a minute of the Commander-in-Chief. This is what the Commander-in-Chief says of the Royal Reserve battalions—
  "As regards the conduct and bearing of those old soldiers who have responded to the Queen's appeal, I have just received reports from eight of the eleven general officers commanding districts in which they are quartered. These reports uniformly describe their bearing, appearance, and conduct as in every way satisfactory, and state that they are likely to be of good value for service at home."
  The Commander-in-Chief goes on to speak of them as—
  "A force of about 24,000 disciplined and trained soldiers, whose presence in the country was and is an invaluable addition to its defensive strength."
  There is no conjecture about that. There is a certain amount of conjecture about the proposal of the noble Earl. These are soldiers whom we have got, and who are spoken of in these terms by the highest military authority in this country. In addition to those we have made very fair progress with the new permanent battalions which we are raising. We have about 5,000 men already. We have about 6,000 men in the newly-raised batteries of the Royal Artillery. I do not think there is any conjecture or imagination about them. As something was said with regard to our treatment of the Volunteers, I trust I may be pardoned if I quote a few words from the report of the Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces, who has lately had occasion to inspect a large number of those emergency camps to which the noble Earl referred. This is what he says—
  "I have this month inspected in camp four-teen Volunteer and nine Militia battalions.

  205
  The improvement which has taken place in both branches from being in camp for prolonged periods is very marked indeed. The behaviour of the men has been excellent. The Volunteers have for the first time been given an opportunity of making themselves really efficient, and they have readily grasped it. 202 battalions out of 217 have applied to come into special camp, exclusive of Volunteer Artillery and Engineers. The battalions of Volunteers which I have seen have come into camp in large numbers, and I have been greatly struck by the improvement which has taken place in every battalion at the end of its fourteen days in camp. The measure of bringing the Volunteers into camp has so far been a remarkable success."
  That, again, is a measure about which there is no conjecture, but a great deal of solid fact. With respect to the Militia, we are certainly not prepared to take any action which might be interpreted in the country as a suggestion that we look to the ballot as the proper means of meeting the exceptional military pressure to which we have been subjected this year; I earnestly hope, however, that your Lordships will not suppose that we desire to shirk what I would call the Militia problem. On the contrary, we regard the future of the Militia as, I would almost say, the most important of the questions of Army reorganisation with which it will be our duty to deal. If there had been any tendency on our part to treat that force with indifference I think the manner in which it has lately come forward would have made it impossible for us, even if we had desired to do so, to neglect its interests in the future. But noble Lords who are interested in the Militia may say to me, "If you have got a complete plan for dealing with the Militia why do you not disclose it in this House?" I trust your Lordships will think that I am not unreasonable when I say that it would be impossible for us at this time to present to Parliament a full and complete scheme for dealing with the Militia. The question of Militia organisation is so closely and intimately connected with that of Army organisation that it is impossible to deal thoroughly with the Militia question without touching upon those organic changes with which it is well understood that it is not our intention or our duty to proceed during the present session. The time of Parliament does not permit it, and there are distinguished soldiers now serving out of the country the benefit of whose experience we should endeavour to reap. Those are,
  206
  to my mind, sufficient reasons for not precipitately touching these problems of Army organisation; but I have no wish to adopt in regard to the Militia what might seem to your Lordships dilatory tactics. If I may, I should like to describe some of the measures affecting the Militia with regard to which our mind is made up and which we see our way to adopting in the immediate future, leaving for further discussion and consideration other measures, which, for the reasons I gave just now, must stand over for the present. I may remind your Lordships, in the first place, that we have already made certain concessions to the force which, I believe, have been well received. We have given the Militia messing allowance during training. We have appointed at the headquarters of the Army a high officer whose special duty is to attend to the Auxiliary forces, and who will be assisted in regard to Militia matters by an officer having experience of that force. We have given to the Militia battalions, for the first time, regimental transport to the extent of five vehicles per battalion and a certain number of horses. Then I come to the question of the clothing of the Militia. I am sorry that my noble friend the Duke of Bedford, who called attention to this matter so pointedly the other evening, is not here to-day. I promised the noble Duke that I would make inquiry into the subject, and I admit that as a result of the inquiries I have made I am satisfied that in the matter of clothing we have allowed what I suppose I might call considerations of frugality to prevail rather too much, and that clothing has sometimes been issued to the Militia which one could scarcely ask a British soldier to wear without some injury to his feelings of self-respect. I am prepared to say that action will betaken without loss of time to remedy that grievance, and although I would rather not go into matters of detail I will say that I will undertake that in the future clothing shall be issued to the force under conditions which will make it impossible for any colonel of Militia to make such a complaint as that which was made by the noble Duke the other evening. Then we have paid a good deal of attention to the instruction of Militia officers. We have prepared a scheme under which Militia officers will be given much more frequent opportunities of attending

  207
  courses of instruction, and that under conditions which will avoid their being put to any private expense during the course of their attendance. I hope we may also be able to do something to add to the efficiency of Militia non-commissioned officers, by which I do not mean the permanent staff, but those of non-commissioned officers who belong to the Militia. They require a larger amount of training than they get, and I hope we shall be able to arrange that they shall receive that training and that the terms on which they will receive it will be such as to render them willing and ready to submit to it. I will say one word on a much vexed question, the question of the training of Militia recruits. I have discovered a very remarkable divergence of opinion with regard to that subject; it is one of those cases in which undoubtedly there is a very great deal to be said on both sides. The complaint, as I understand it, is this—that when the Militia recruit is taken to the depôt his training is neglected by the depôt staff, that he has too heavy fatigues imposed upon him, and, above all, that, owing to the practice of training these men at the depôt, a good deal of what may be conveniently described as poaching goes on—the man who goes to the depôt as a Militia recruit being annexed for the Line by the depôt officer. On the other hand there are certain advantages which the depôt undoubtedly possesses It is there to receive a man at any time and give him his training at the season of the year most convenient to himself, he can be clothed and equipped at once, and he has the advantage of instruction by a permanent staff which I should be inclined to say was better qualified than the permanent staff of the battalion. I can only indicate, in regard to this measure, the direction in which our mind is moving. I hope we shall be able to increase the length of the training undergone by the Militia recruits. These young men join at a time when they are not settled down in life, and probably the addition of two or three months to their period of training would not be regarded as a hardship. If that be done, as it probably will, it is our intention that that portion of the training which takes place with the battalion should be increased, while with regard to that portion of it which might still be undergone at the depôt, I think we might meet some of the complaints which have been made by
  208
  arranging that one or more Militia officers should be attached to the depôt for the purpose of watching over the interests of the men belonging to their own battalion. Those seem to me to be measures calculated to meet some of the objections to which we have listened. Then I wish to say one word in regard to the most important question of the conditions of service of the Militia and the bounties paid to the Militiamen. A scheme has been put before us and considered under which the whole of the Militia might be allowed to accept liability for service abroad, under which, in consideration of their assuming that liability, the bounties might be considerably increased, with the further condition that the Militia Reserve, which is so unpopular in the estimation of Militia officers, should be put an end to altogether, the whole force accepting, he same liability as that under which the Militia Reserve now serves. That is, I must say, a scheme which, to my mind, possesses a great many attractions, and I believe—we have reason to know it—that it is acceptable to a very large number of Militia officers. Whether it would be equally acceptable to the rank and file of the Militia is, perhaps, a matter of conjecture; we only know that the men are very ready to join the existing Militia Reserve, and it seems not unlikely that, in consideration of a higher bounty, they would be ready as a force to accept the same liability as that of the present Militia Reservists. I know that such a scheme has been advocated in this House by a noble Lord whoso knowledge of Army matters and whose caution in dealing with them will not be questioned—I mean Lord Northbrook. And I know that when Lord Northbrook made the suggestion he was followed by the noble Earl the leader of the Opposition, who expressed himself in decided terms against any proposal calculated to alter the conditions of service of the Militia force—I mean those conditions under which they are at present liable to serve only within the limits of the United Kingdom. That would, of course, be a very momentous and far-reaching change, and I am not ashamed to tell your Lordships that we must take time to consider it. I have gone into it rather fully for this reason, that it is very closely indeed connected with the question which has been raised by the noble Earl this evening. We none of us,

  209
  I think, have ever contemplated that there should be compulsion in any shape or form except for service within the limits of the United Kingdom, and it would follow that if the kind of change were made which I adumbrated just now, if the whole of the Militia were to be regarded as liable on an emergency to serve outside the limits of the United Kingdom, you would place the ballot in an infinitely more remote position in the background of military politics than it occupies at the present time. I trust, therefore, your Lordships do not think what I have said in regard to this proposal is irrelevant to the subject we are now discussing. While these matters are still under consideration I do not think we are unreasonable when we ask your Lordships not to proceed further with a Ballot Bill. If it is possible that the conditions of service for the whole force may be changed, if, again, it is possible that the removal of some of those grievances of which we have heard so much should have the result of again filling the ranks of the Militia, the necessity for the ballot will diminish or will disappear; and I therefore think that, far from being, as has been suggested by the noble Earl, illogical and inconsistent be- cause, having introduced this Bill last year, we do not press on with it at present, we are taking the only course which logic and consistency dictate for us. As to the argument of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, there seem to me, if I may be allowed to say so, to be two weak points in his position. One of them is his inability to recognise any merit in any measures except those which he has him self initiated; the other weak point is this, I think he altogether underrates the dislike with which compulsion in any form, even in the modest form which he advocates, is regarded by the people of this country.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: How do yon know?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I know it, among other things, from this, that when I introduced this Bill last year- -and the Bill did 'not really bring us
  a yard nearer to compulsion-I was inundated with remonstrances from all parts of the United Kingdom, proceeding from people who believed that even that short step carried them nearer to the thing they abhorred. This is felt very strongly, and I do not think the Prime Minister used language of exaggeration last year when he said that at this moment an attempt to revert to the ballot would create consternation in every cottage in this country. For these reasons I would say to your Lordships that while if it could be shown that resort to the ballot could be proved to be an absolute necessity we ought to sit here until Christmas in order to pass it, under present circumstances we shall only be creating a false impression and wasting the time of Parliament if we vote with the noble Earl for the Second Heading of this Bill. I propose to ask your Lordships, therefore, to vote on the previous question.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before your Lordships vote on this Bill I wish, in justice to myself, to put clearly before the House the question on which you are going to vote. I deny that my history, as my noble friend has suggested, was incomplete. The noble Marquess in 1898 said that the machinery of the ballot was obsolete at that time, and that if used at all it would have to be brought up to date. In 1899 my noble friend brought in this Bill, but it is not to impose the ballot, although I myself would be prepared to see that done to-morrow, because I believe we shall never have a satisfactory state of things in an emergency unless we have the courage to enforce the existing law. That, however, is not what we are going to vote on, but on the question that the obsolete machinery should be brought up to date. This is a vital question, and if I can get a teller I shall divide the House.
  The previous Question was put, whether I the original Question be now put.
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31; Not Contents, 90.

  CONTENTS.

  Abercorn M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Hardwicke. E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Manvers, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Temple, E.

  Crofton, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Sherborne, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Napier, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Forester, L.

  Newton, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Headley, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller]

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.) [Teller.]

  Scarsdale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Morley, E.

  Digby, L.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Erskine, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Onslow, E,

  Farrer, L.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Powis, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Romney, E.

  Glanusk, L.

  Beaufort, D.

  Rosse, E.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Harris, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Camden, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Herries, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Lansdowne, M

  James, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Winchester, M.

  Frankfort de Montmorency, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Lawrence, L.

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

  Llandaff, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Portman, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Muncaster, L.

  Chesterfield, E

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Robertson, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Russell of Killowen, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

  Egerton, E.

  Brampton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Thring, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Wantage, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Welby, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  BEER RETAILERS' AND SPIRIT GROCERS' LICENCES (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, the objects of this Bill are—(a) to put applications in Ireland for spirit grocers' retail licences and beer retail licences (in each case for consumption off the premises) on the same footing; (b) to extend to Irish licensing authorities in respect of such licences the powers of the English Act of 1882 (45 and 46 Vict. c. 34). The Bill becomes necessary because as the Act of 1882 only provided in terms against its application to Scotland it was considered, until a recent decision in the Irish Courts to the contrary, that it inferentially applied to Ireland as well as to England. The Bill has passed through the House of
  212
  Commons, and has, I believe, the full assent of the Government of Ireland.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Erne.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The Bill which the noble Earl has brought before the House has the approval of the Irish Government, but I shall have a few drafting Amendments to move when the Bill is in Committee.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  DIOCESAN REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill of only four clauses, to enable the Diocesan Documents to be preserved and kept intact over the country. At present some Acts of Parliament require deeds, etc., to be registered, but others omit the direction. The record of a great variety of ecclesiastical documents is very imperfect, and every now and then some such record which is very much wanted cannot be found. I will give your Lordships an instance of what I mean. In 1881 the then vicar of St. George's, Bickley, in Kent, was appointed Dean of Wells, and the question arose in whose patronage Bickley was vested. It was known that an agreement as to patronage had been signed by all parties concerned, but no agreement could anywhere be found. After five months of search and inquiry, and before the lapse, the signed agreement was ultimately discovered amongst some old bankruptcy papers in a disused solicitor's office. It is obvious that that is not a proper state of things. In the spring of 1898 application was made to the Canterbury Diocesan Registry for a patronage agreement relating to Christ Church, Beckenham, which it was stated had been signed by all parties in 1876, but no trace of it could then be found in the registry or elsewhere. It had never been registered. This Bill proposes that documents of this kind should in all cases be registered. I do not think it is likely to meet with opposition from any quarter, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.I.
  Read 3a (according to Order): An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  VOLUNTEERS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MILITIA SERGEANT-MAJORS AND QUARTERMASTERS.
  LORD BLYTHSWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he will give effect to his promise of conferring warrant rank on sergeant majors of Militia; and when the additional allowance for quartermasters of embodied Militia will be authorised.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As regards the first part of the question, some time has necessarily been taken up in considering the changes in rates of pay and pension which will accompany the grant of warrant rank to sergeant-majors, of Militia. We shall, I hope, very shortly be in a position to issue an Army Order on the subject. As regards the second part of the question, the regulation making the grant referred to to Militia adjutants and quartermasters has, I believe, already appeared.

  MILITARY LANDS BILL [H.L.]
  Debate on Amendment moved after Third Reading resumed (according to Order).
  LORD THRING: With the permission of the House I desire to withdraw my Amendments to Clause 3 of this Bill, and I also wish to say a few words of explanation. The two Amendments in the schedule were important ones—one was to allow persons injuriously affected by the scheme, as well as those actually interested in the land, to appear at the public inquiry; and the other was to allow landlords to obtain resumption of their land when required for building purposes. I hope the noble Marquess will have these Amendments introduced when the Bill is, in the other House. I do not wish to oppose the measure or to imperil it. What I do wish is that what seems to be a new doctrine should meet with the disapprobation of this House—namely, the doctrine that in order to facilitate the passage of a Bill it is desirable that some of the really substantial clauses should be wrapped in a cloud of generalities. I hope also that the House will express its strong disapproval of a new phraseology which has grown up lately in Acts of

  215
  Parliament which allows a Department to adapt actual enactments to the particular exigencies of the case.
  Amendments, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I must plead guilty to being somewhat late in the Criticisms which I have made, but I can assure my noble friend the Secretary of State for War that it is not my desire to in anyway arrest the progress of this Bill. I fully realise the enormous importance of obtaining land for rifle ranges, and I recognise that cases may occur in which a recalcitrant landlord may prevent land which is absolutely necessary being acquired. I should like to call my noble friend's attention to the condition in which Clause 3 leaves the House. It is practically taken from the Acts which enable parish councils to apply to county councils for power to hire land for allotments. The compulsory hiring of land is, with the exception of the provision in the Allotments Act, absolutely a new principle in legislation, and I regret that the conditions under which the compulsory hiring of land for rifle ranges is to be allowed are not more clearly expressed in the Bill. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Act of 1894, which are incorporated in the third clause of this Bill, are extremely difficult to understand. In fact, if I may venture to say so, they are extremely bad clauses, and I would suggest to my noble friend that when the Bill is in the House of Commons an attempt should be made to remodel the clause Allotments and rifle ranges are very different in character. It is a very different thing to give a parish council or a borough council power to hire compulsorily a few acres of land for allotments, and to give public bodies power to hire a very largo extent of country for rifle ranges. There are, therefore, in the clauses which are incorporated, several provisions wholly inapplicable to rifle ranges, and at the same time there are omissions which, I think, the noble Marquess should give his attention to. The omissions I refer to particularly are those which were brought to the attention of the House by Lord Thring and Lord
  216
  Portsmouth. In the first place, there is the question of those whose land is not absolutely taken, but who may have land adjoining which may be injuriously affected. This question could hardly arise in the case of allotments. Therefore, I venture to think that, in addition to those whose land is actually taken, those whose interests are likely to be injuriously affected should also have power to be heard by the tribunal before whom the question comes. In the case of hiring for allotments, leases are confined to a maximum of thirty-five years. Allotments do not occupy a very large track of country—a few acres at the outside; but in the case of rifle ranges a very large amount of country may be affected, and it is possible that the land may within thirty-five years become a very valuable building estate. I would ask the House whether it is not fair that, as owners of land hired compulsorily for allotments have power to resume possession in cases where, for instance, minerals are discovered, there should also be a power vested in owners under this Bill to appeal for the resumption of their land on other grounds. I would also suggest that if there is any difficulty in carrying this out the case might be met by the maximum length of the lease being reduced to twenty years. There is one other matter. In the case of allotments, as a rule, the originating local authority is the parish council. When a parish council desires to hire land compulsorily for allotments, the first step is to apply to the county council for leave to do so. The county council institutes a local inquiry and ascertains whether the land has not been obtainable by agreement, and whether the opposition is or is not worthy of consideration. If they think fit they give the necessary powers. From the county council's decision after the inquiry there is a further appeal to the Local Government Board. I should like to point out that the preliminary inquiry is eliminated altogether from this Bill. I would emphasise what has fallen from Lord Thring as to the power given to a Government Department to adapt or in any way alter an Act of Parliament. I do not think that is a power which should be given to any Government Department. I hope that, in the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, clauses will be enacted in the Bill itself which will show those whose land is to be taken exactly what the process is under which

  217
  it will be taken. That will be much more satisfactory than referring to two clauses in another Act which contain provisions that do not apply to military lands at all, and which omit several precautions which I think in this case ought to be taken.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the noble and learned Lord will not suspect that I complain of his tenacity in this matter. He has given us advice which has been useful, but I am afraid I am in a difficult position, because I have had expert advice from the noble and learned Lord, and I have had other expert advice which does not agree, and therefore I think I am entitled to the sympathy of your Lordships. I am reluctant to accept the schedule proposed by Lord Thring, because there is an objection to including in an Act of Parliament what is in effect an epitome of other Acts of Parliament. I admit that there is a great deal to be said for my noble friend's view that the form in which the Bill has been drawn is unnecessarily obscure. The best proof of that is that it has been understood differently by persons all of whom might have been considered capable of understanding a complicated problem. I am willing to undertake that when this Bill is dealt with elsewhere an attempt shall be made to give effect to the views that have been expressed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees—namely, that instead of having recourse to this power of adaptation we should re-enact mutatis mutandis the clauses in the other Act. I will also undertake that the two specific suggestions that have been made shall be considered—namely, that owners of building land whose land has been taken for the purpose shall have opportunities of exercising the right of resumption under conditions more advantageous to them than those afforded by the Bill as it now stands, and that adjoining owners who may be injuriously affected by the creation of these rifle ranges shall have some means of obtaining compensation. I trust we shall be able to meet the criticisms, which I readily admit are reasonable criticisms, on these points. I hope we shall be allowed to retain compulsory power of hiring in the Bill, because it is immensely important that rifle ranges should be provided, and it would be a great misfortune if it were in
  218
  the power of some obstinate and unaccommodating person who owned a small fragment of the necessary land to upset the whole scheme.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthanked the Secretary of State for War for the undertaking he had given that when the Bill was dealt with in the House of Commons the suggestions he (Lord Portsmouth) and Lord Thring had expressed would be considered, and, if possible, given effect to.
  LORD HERRIES: I do not think this Bill should be allowed to pass your Lordships' House in its present unsatisfactory form on the chance of its being amended in another place. Why not postpone the Third Reading and have the Bill amended before allowing it to pass?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I would point out to the noble Lord that the Third Reading, has been put and agreed to. The motion still pending is "That this Bill do pass."
  LORD HERRIES: Then I object to the Bill passing, because it is in an unsatisfactory form.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT—BUCKLAND MUSEUM.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord President whether any arrangement has been made, or is in progress, for transferring the care of the Buckland Fish Museum to the Fishery Department of the Board of Trade, and for providing a permanent home for the museum: also why this museum, the bequest of which was accepted by the Science and Art Department in trust for exhibition, is now closed to the public, and when it will be reopened.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I am very sorry that the Board of Education, who have succeeded to the duties of the Science and Art Department, have been very much occupied recently in other matters, and have not been yet able to make any progress in the communications with the Board of Trade as to the

  219
  future disposal of the Buckland Museum. I hope during the recess, if not sooner, to resume those communications, and of course I can assure my noble friend that in the meantime no step will be taken to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee, which sat a year or two ago, in regard to the removal of this collection. The museum has been temporarily closed owing to the demolition and re-erection of some temporary buildings contiguous to the part of the gallery where the re-erection is to be made, and it became necessary to utilise the part of the gallery whore the fish collection is housed during these operations. The museum has, I believe, again been opened to the public to-day.

  INDIAN FAMINE—RELIEF MEASURES.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the unprecedented severity of the famine and the great distress which must for some time continue after the bursting of the monsoon, the Government of India have in contemplation any extension of the system of relief beyond that laid down in the Famine Code.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: Before the noble Earl replies I should like to be allowed to say that any announcement on the part of the Government in the direction indicated in my noble friend's question will be greatly welcomed in the northern part of this kingdom, from which I come. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, there are a great many Scotsmen in India, and their friends in Scotland have received many private letters containing descriptions of the horrors of the famine more vivid than those published in the newspapers. The result is that in Scotland it is hoped, and even anticipated, that the Government may be contemplating some action beyond what has been already announced.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I am not sure that apprehend rightly the exact nature of the aim of the noble Earl who spoke last, but I father gathered that he referred to some kind of grant from the Imperial Exchequer to assist the Government of India. The statement has already been
  220
  made to Parliament that Her Majesty's Government would come forward with assistance if they were satisfied that the resources of the Government of India were insufficient for the purpose. As far as we know at present those resources are sufficient for the great demands made upon them. Of course an enormous amount depends on the result of the monsoon which has just burst, and therefore it would be impossible for her Majesty's Government to give any promise or to foreshadow what their action might be until we know what is likely to be the condition of affairs during the coming rainy season. The Government of India have already far exceeded the prescriptions of the Code, which are elastic and not rigid, and have been adapted by the Government of India to the differing local requirements to the entire satisfaction of the local Governments concerned. For example, in the Central Provinces a very large number of kitchens have been opened, which will feed all comers during the rains, and the aged and infirm will be relieved at home. The able-bodied labourers will be given local employment by the village headmen at the cost of the State wherever private demand for fixed labour is slack. Sixty lakhs of land revenue have been suspended out of the eighty-six demanded. This sum, added to the twenty-seven lakhs special advances and the thirty lakhs of charitable relief, will, in the Chief Commissioner's opinion, secure active agriculture during the rains. Similar relief measures during the rains have been adopted elsewhere. In Bombay—the Presidency over which the noble Lord (Lord Sandhurst) presided with distinction in recent years—the Government are extending kitchens and gratuitous lists, and they are granting to the ryots advances for the subsistence of themselves and their labourers till next crop. They estimate twenty-five lakhs as the amount required for this, besides over sixty lakhs for seed and cattle. Of the Bombay land revenue only 192 lakhs out of 296 had been collected. In the Punjab the small farmers and labourers will receive subsistence allowances, and the revenue suspensions there are very large. The noble Lord asked me a question as to what are the estimates the Government of India have formed of the amount they will have to advance. These estimates, the earlier estimates, have been consider-

  221
  ably increased. In the Budget arrangements fifty lakhs of rupees have been allocated, but the Government of India recognise that this sum is insufficient, and the requirements of the approaching season will be met by an additional 72½ lakhs; accordingly the grants will be increased to an aggregate total of Rx. 1,220,000. The Central Committee of the Indian Famine Fund have made grants aggregating (for British India alone) 50 lakhs of rupees. This is in addition to the provincial charitable relief funds already at the disposal of the local Governments. I hope the noble Lord will see that the suggestion thrown out that advances should be made with no niggardly hand has been adopted by the Government of India. No interest will be asked for them, no part of them will be repayable for a year, and the provincial Governments will have the utmost latitude to remit any portion of an advance they may think fit.

  COLONIAL STOCK BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The object of this Bill is to enable, under the proper guarantee of the Treasury, that stocks of certain colonies to be brought within the category of those stocks in which trustees may invest under the Act of 1877, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Seven clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.