Sitting of 17 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  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 Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with—viz., Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Great Northern Railway Bill; Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords] (King's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Derby Gas Bill [Lords]; Dudley, Stourbridge, and District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered: to be read the third time.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No 4) Bill. Lords' Amendments considered and agreed to.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords]. Read the second time, and committed.
  Birmingham District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Cnard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords]; Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [Lords]; Mid-Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Taff Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords]; Barry Rail way Bill [Lords]; Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they had agreed to, Elementary Education Amendment Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; without Amendment.
  Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill; Middlesbrough Corporation Bill; with Amendments.
  Amendment to, Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [Lords]; Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Aston Manor Improvement Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the London County Council to provide receiving houses for the reception of persons mentally affected or alleged to be of unsound mind, and to authorise the detention of such persons in such houses, and for other purposes connected therewith." [Lunacy Acts Amendment (London) Bill [Lords].]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation Police." [Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure

  1023
  (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Irvine and District Water Board." [Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; read the first time: to be read a second time upon Monday, 27th July, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]
  Irvine and District Water Board Confirmation Bill [Lords]; read a first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 27th July, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read a third time upon Monday next.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Beported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Water Orders Confirmation Bill Lords]; Reported, without Amendment [Provisonal Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Lochnell, Estate Bill [Lords]; Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill to be read the third time.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, being for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 8, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Report on Slavery and Free Labour in the British East Africa Protectorate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COMMERCIAL RELATIONS (COMMERCIAL, No. 6, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Findings of the Permanent Commission established under Article VII. of the Sugar Convention of 5th March, 1902, and Report of the British Delegate [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3,031 to 3,033 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 11, 1903).
  Copy presented, of the Accession of Denmark to the International Convention of 9th September, 1886, establishing an International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and also to the additional Act and Declaration signed in Paris, 4th May, 1896 —1st July, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS.]
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [260.]
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 389 (Sierra Leone, Annual Report for 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRINIDAD.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the recent disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRINIDAD.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the recent disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Glasgow for the year ending 30th September,

  1025
  1902 [by Act] to lie upon the Table; and to be printed. [No. 261.]
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (POST OFFICE).
  Copy of Fourth Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Concessions for the Collection of Rubber in Uganda.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will lay upon the Table of the House the terms and conditions of the concessions granted to the Italian Colonial Trading Company and the Victoria Nyanza Agency, respectively for the collection of rubber in the Uganda Protectorate.
  (Answered by Lord Camborne.) The text of the concessions has not yet been received. The general terms and conditions were given in the Return laid in Africa, No. 7, 1903. The main conditions of the agreement with the Italian Company are reported by His Majesty's Commissioner to be: that it is for five years; that the permit is held subject to any rights of the natives to forest produce; that the permit carries no rights other than the collection of rubber; that European supervision is to be employed, and only trained collectors allowed to collect rubber; that any labour employed within the area of the permit is to be paid for in rupees, and not in shells or food; that the Company plant 20,000 vines during the period of the permit in areas to be approved by the collector; that at the expiration of the permit the conditions for a fresh permit be considered between the Administration and the Company.
  1026
  The agreement with the Victoria Nyanza Agency is also for five years, the firm undertaking to plant 14,000 rubber vines during the period of the permit.

  Increase in price of wheat during "Leiter Corner."
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what was the rise in the price of wheat in Great Britain at the time of the recent Leiter corner in wheat at Chicago.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The mean of the monthly average Gazette prices of British wheat in England and Wales for January, February, and March 1898 was about 35s. 2d. per quarter. The average for the months immediately following were April, 36s.; May, 46s.; June. 43s. 7d.; July, 37s. 5d.; August, 33s. 1d.; the average falling to 26s. 5d. in September. The highest point touched was 48s. 1d. in the week ending 21st May.

  Average prices and duty on Wheat in England, France and Germany.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what was the equivalent in English money of the duty on, and the average price after duty was charged, of a quarter of wheat taking 500 lbs. to the quarter, at ports of importation in England, Germany, and France on the first day of each quarter between 1st April 1901 and 1st June 1903, inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No information can be given as to the average prices of imported wheat in England, Germany, and France on particular days.

  Electric High-Tension Current on Overhead Wires.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, seeing that the Governments of America, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and other countries have, during the last ten years, passed laws regulating the methods of distributing high-tension current by overhead wires, which has resulted in a widely employed use of electricity for industrial

  1027
  purposes, he will say whether, in view of the restrictions of the Board of Trade, there is a single case in Great Britain or Ireland where high-tension current over-head wires have been installed.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the continued refusals of the Board of Trade to grant facilities to manufacturers in this country to use high-tension bare wires, for the alleged reason that these wires might be dangerous to the public, he has taken any steps to ask the Foreign Office to obtain Reports from His Majesty's Consuls Abroad as to whether any accidents have been caused by this system of power transmission; and if he has not done so will he communicate with the Foreign Office on the subject with a view of obtaining these Reports.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I will answer the hon. Member's Questions together and refer him to the Answer given to a similar Question which he put to me on the 24th of June last.† The Board of Trade have not refused to grant facilities to manufacturers for the use of high-tension bare wires. Until quite recently the Department has not been asked to sanction this method of supply. As was stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question, the Board will give their best consideration to applications for the use of high voltage, dealing with each case on its merits.

  Foreign Imports into the Colonies—Merchandise Marks Acts.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact stated in the introductory memorandum to Parliamentary Paper [C. 8449], that a considerable proportion of the apparent increase in foreign importations is attributed in most of the colonies to the effect of the Merchandise Marks Act, and the consequent injury to British reshipment trade, he proposes to amend or to repeal that measure.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Board of Trade do not propose to repeal the Act. The question of its amendment is one for consideration;
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 377.
  1028
  but it is obvious that no Bill dealing with the subject could be introduced during the present session.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Reprint of Parliamentary Paper No. 299 of session of 1825.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the forthcoming discussion into the relative merits of different fiscal systems, he will cause a reprint to be made of Parliamentary Paper No. 299, of session 1825, giving the rates of wages in various districts, the extent to which the practice of paying the wages of agricultural labour out of the poor rates prevailed at the time, and the conditions relating to marriage and number of children under which assistance was given.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I do not think any useful purpose would be served by republishing this old Return.

  Assistant Head Postmen—Case of C. W. Mason of Clapham.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why postman C. W. Mason of Clapham, was not appointed assistant head postman when the duty which he had been working for four and a half years was made an assistant head postman's duty; and further why the 3s. allowance which he had been receiving during that time was not added to his wages.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Postman Mason was not appointed assistant head postman because he had not the qualifications necessary for that appointment. The duty for which Mason had received a temporary allowance of 3s. a week was not equivalent to that of an assistant head postman, and the allowance ceased when he ceased to perform the duty.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he could lay down a more definite programme for business next week, especially in reference to Supply on Thursday, and if the right hon. Gentleman could fix a day for the discussion of the Sugar Convention Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR ()said some ambiguity was thrown over the proceedings for next week; and having looked into the matter he believed the most convenient course would be to take the Irish Estimates on Monday, assuming that the Report stage of the Irish Land Bill would be finished during the afternoon. If that stage should not be completed it would not be possible to take the remaining portion of the Bill on Monday and Irish Estimates afterwards, for that would be contrary to the rule for taking Supply as the first Order. Irish Supply would be taken on Monday if the Report stage of the Land Bill finished by half-past Five. On Tuesday he proposed to put the Third Reading of the Land Bill as first order, and to follow with the Licensing Acts (Scotland) Bill, Report, the Employment of Children Bill, the Metropolitan Streets Bill, and the Committee on the Naval Works Bill, in the order mentioned. He could not yet say what would be the first order on "Wednesday. On Thursday the Foreign Office Vote and the Colonial Office Vote would be put down, and he would comply with the general desire as to which of these should be first order. In these circumstances it would not be possible to take the Sugar Convention Bill next week.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid as to the preference between the Colonial Office Vote and the Foreign Office Vote he would gather opinions by Monday.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the decision on this point should be known as soon as possible, because it might make a difference in the arrangements hon. Members desired to make.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Amendment he desired to move stood fifth upon the Paper. It was not, he thought, too much to ask that the appeal to the Privy Council should be abolished where land was desired to be acquired by a local authority for the purpose of building
  1030
  labourers' cottages and the making of roads. Previous to the passing of the Local Government Act for Ireland the old Grand Juries had tremendous power in regard to the making of roads and an appeal to the Privy Council under those circumstances might have been necessary. But now that the tenants had the matter in their own hands and elected the County Councils such an appeal was not necessary. He begged to move.
  Clause. (Compulsory acquisition land.)
  "Where any land or easement sold under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts is required by any local authority under any Act enabling such authority compulsorily to acquire same, no appeal shall lie from any order of the Local Government Board sanctioning the acquisition of such land under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, or the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, and the decision of the Judge of Assize under Section 10, Sub-section 3 (d) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be final except when the order therein referred to is refused."'—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said this proposal, though perhaps within the scope of the Bill, was somewhat foreign to the general purport of the Land Purchase Bill as he read that all rights of appeal against Provisional Orders should be abolished. That was a very large proposal and one upon which a good deal might have to be said before it was assented to. He had stated in Committee that he could not grapple with the question of the Labourers Acts in this Bill, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid they quite recognised that with regard to this matter the right hon. Gentleman had many difficulties to contend with, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that those who represented the tenant farmers also had their difficulties. The existing appeal to the Privy Council with regard to the question of labourers' cottages was one of the greatest absurdities on the Statute-book, and he hoped the matter

  1031
  would be dealt with in the Labourers Bill which was promised for next session.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid as there was some misapprehension with regard to the matter he would beg leave to withdraw the clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid his next Amendment was one to which the Government had no answer. He postponed it on the Committee stage as he understood the Government were considering the question. It seemed to him to be a monstrous thing that men should be deprived of the right to have their rents varied through no fault of their own, but through the failure of the Government to advertise in the Gazette. It seemed strange that the Government should allow this law which had fallen into disuse to remain as it was. The Government had remedied the grievance so far as the most unmeritorious class, the owners of the land, was concerned, but the people for whom he spoke had no influence to get it remedied so far as they were concerned. He begged to move.
  Clause (Variable head rents.)
  "Where by reason of the non-publication of the average prices of produce in the Dublin Gazette, it has become impossible judicially to determine the amount by which any variable rent calculable upon an average of prices should be varied, Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of the sixty-third and sixty-fourth years of Victoria, chapter fifty-eight, shall apply in the case of such variable rents, and the words 'tithe rent-charge,' in the said sections, shall be deemed to include my variable rent as aforesaid."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid his sympathy was entirely with this clause, but if they attempted to remedy one grievance it would open the door to other appeals, and they would have others forced upon them, endangering the progress of the
  1032
  Bill. If good reason was shown in the other House for accepting the Amendment it could be accepted there. He did not think he ought to accept it here.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBspeaking generally on behalf of the landlords, said they were strongly in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. WYNDHAMin these circumstances assented to the clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Clause (Sub-divided holdings.)
  "In the construction of Section 5, Sub-section 3, of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the words 'tenants in common' shall be deemed to include two or more persons between whom the holding is divided."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question "That the clause be read a second time," put and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that whilst he had little hope of succeeding in adding the clause he now proposed to the Bill, he must, on behalf of the farmers in the north of Ireland, enter a protest against the manner in which, in recent years, they had been deprived of the Ulster custom. A landlord could take a third of the tenant's property and then go into the market and sell the farm for its full value. This was a very real grievance, and was bitterly felt in Ulster. He begged to move.
  Clause (Abolition of landlord's right of pre-emption.)
  "Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, relating to the right of the landlord to purchase a holding is hereby repealed."'—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the House would gather that this was a question

  1033
  which excited a great deal of interest in Ulster, and that it was an extremely controversial subject. Without expressing any opinion he deprecated discussing controversial matters for the reason he had given.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was his duty on behalf of the Ulster farmers to enter his protest. He had received many representations on the question. He begged leave to withdraw the clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. LONSDALEsaid his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary justified the grant of £5,000 to Trinity College—which was provided for by Clause 38 of the Bill—on the ground that unless that clause was added to the Bill, land purchase would be hampered over a, great part of Ireland. He went so far as to say that—
  "In his deliberate opinion, if it were not adopted some 9,000 or 10,000 tenant occupiers would be debarred from taking advantage of the Act."
  The Chief Secretary added—
  "The clause was necessary—if distasteful—if land purchase in respect of all these tenants was not to be hung up."
  Now, it was with the interests of those 9,000 or 10,000 tenant-occupiers—and especially with the interests of those who resided in the constituency which he had the honour to represent—that he was concerned. The Chief Secretary had shown that he appreciated the position in which these tenants would be placed, and in their behalf he wanted to obtain from his right hon. friend some further explanation as to how Clause 38 was expected to work. How would that clause, of itself, and without further provision being made, facilitate land purchase in the case of the occupiers of Trinity College lands? How was it going to remove the barrier which stood in the way of these tenants becoming the purchasers of their holdings? He voted for the grant to Trinity College, because he believed it would pave the way for a new clause that would really benefit the tenant occupiers by enabling their immediate landlords to secure the redemption
  1034
  of the head-rents at such a price as would allow of the estates being sold to the tenants on fair terms. He could not for the life of him see how this grant of £5,000 to Trinity College—standing alone—was going to benefit the tenants of Trinity College lands in the slightest degree. His right hon. friend the Chief Secretary himself seemed doubtful as to whether the grant would be sufficient to accomplish the object which he firmly believed he was anxious to achieve. He admitted, in fact, that he was not confident that even this additional aid would succeed in solving the question. He (Mr. Lonsdale) was more than doubtful on the point. The information which he had received convinced him that, unless the grant was followed up by some such provision as that now proposed, the tenants of these Trinity College lands would be denied those opportunities of becoming owners of their farms which were being extended to other classes of tenants. That would be a deplorable result, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to consider very carefully whether he could not accept the plan suggested for giving effect to the desire they all entertained, that every tenant-occupier in Ireland should be placed in full possession, as owner, of his holding.
  Now, what were the facts in regard to these Trinity College lands? Certain lands, amounting in all to about 150,000 acres, were held from Trinity College by tenants in perpetuity. The Solicitor-General for Ireland had told them there were about 100 of these grantees; but the tenants under them numbered 9,000 or 10,000. These occupiers were now almost all judicial tenants. Since the passing of the Act of 1881, they had had their rents judicially revised twice and were now paying to their immediate landlords, the grantees, rents from 30 to 40 per cent. below the rents they paid up to 1881. On the other hand, the rents paid by the grantees to Trinity College had not been reduced. On the contrary, they had stood at the high level to which they were raised prior to 1881. The grantees therefore had suffered a serious loss of income through the operation of the Act of 1881. In some cases, that loss of income had been as much as 75 and 80 per

  1035
  cent.; while in one instance that had been brought to his notice. Trinity College received from the grantee considerably more than the grantee got in the shape of rent from his tenants, and was obliged to make good the loss out of his other properties. Another point that had to be borne in mind in connection with these Trinity College estates was that the grantees had spent very large sums of money in improving and developing the property. That expenditure, representing so much capital sunk in the soil, had not produced any interest in recent years, owing to the heavy reductions in rent. He was not advancing a claim upon the sympathy of the House for the middlemen landlords. His object was simply to show the bearing of the facts he had stated upon the problem of purchase; and to show the difficulty that stood in the way of the occupiers under these grantees becoming the purchasers of their holdings. Under the scheme of purchase embodied in the Bill the price to be paid to the grantees would be calculated on the reduced rental of the holdings. The superior interest, the amount due to Trinity College as head landlord, would, on the other hand, have to be redeemed upon the unreduced rental. That was how the matter stood. The grantee under Trinity College might be very anxious to sell his estate to his tenants; but he would be deterred from taking the necessary steps by the fear that if he entered into purchase arrangements he might find himself squeezed between the upper and the nether millstone. He very naturally shrank from embarking upon an undertaking which might result in his being deprived both of land and money. Unless he was reassured on that head and was afforded a reasonable prospect of securing a fair price for his interest in the land and a fair return upon the capital he or his family might have invested in the estate, he would refuse to sell, and the tenants on his estate would be left out in the cold. He was not justifying that attitude. He was simply stating the facts. Those facts must be faced and dealt with if land purchase was not to be hung up indefinitely in the cases of a large number of the best, most progressive,
  1036
  and most worthy of the farmers of Ireland.
  But although he held no brief for the middlemen landlords he felt bound to protest against the tone adopted towards them by his right hon. friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland. His remarks, when speaking in Committee on Clause 38, conveyed to his mind a covert suggestion that up to 1881 these landlords had been charging excessive rents to their tenants. Trinity College had certainly raised the head-rents, and it might be that some middlemen extracted more than they should have done from the occupiers under them. But that was not the case in every instance. One of these landlords who had written to him said—
  "I know that so far as my grant is concerned, my father only carried forward to the occupying tenants one half the increase the college added to his rents in 1866, and paid the rest out of his own pocket and never raised the rents on any other occasion."
  He had no doubt the same thing happened on other estates; because he knew among the Trinity College grantees were to be found some of the best of the Irish landlords. At all events he maintained that this suggestion of merciless exaction on the part of the middlemen came with a very bad grace from the representative of Trinity College, which, he himself admitted, had distinguished itself by a rigorous maintenance of its rights; but which could not claim to have distinguished itself by any fulfilment of the duties attaching to property. He would ask the Solicitor-General to inform them whether it was not a fact that when Trinity College obtained possession of the O'Connell property at Cahirciveen, in 1865, they raised the rents in that village from £200 to about £700 a year. Trinity College did not in every case leave the occupiers of its lands to the tender mercies of the middlemen. Some of their tenants apparently had reason to wish they had done so. The middlemen landlords had certainly shown some regard for the duties attaching to property, and it was beyond dispute that in many cases they had spent very large sums of money in developing their estates and in improvements from which their tenants had derived benefit. They were now confronted by the prospect of having to lose the whole of

  1037
  this capital which had been expended on improvements, and that was the consideration which was likely to deter them from entering into purchase arrangements with their tenants. Up to the present time nothing had fallen from the Government which was calculated to relieve their minds from anxiety or encourage them to offer their estates for sale.
  What they wanted to know was how many years purchase of the head-rent would Trinity College require to satisfy their demands. Was it correct to assume that Trinity College looked to obtain twenty-five years purchase of the head-rents? The Chief Secretary said in Committee—
  "It was estimated that the net loss to Trinity College would be £9,000 a year,"
  if the present head-rents were redeemed. The total of the College head-rents was £36,000 a year. The capital value of that sum at 3 per cent. would be £1,200,000, which would represent thirty-three years purchase. But the College estimated to lose £9,000 a year—reducing the income to £27,000. The capital value of that sum at 3 per cent. would be £900,000—which would represent twenty-five years purchase of the existing head-rents. If the College really meant to stand out for twenty-five years purchase, then he was afraid the grantees would not be at all disposed to entertain proposals for the sale of their estates. The redemption of the superior interest on such terms would entail such financial sacrifice upon them that they would absolutely decline to sell. What was needed to overcome the serious obstacle to purchase which stood in the path of 10,000 tenant farmers was some such scheme of varying the head-rents in proportion to the variation in the occupiers' judicial rents, as that now proposed. It was all very well for the Solicitor-General to proclaim the inviolability of the arrangement entered into by Trinity College and its grantees, which was embodied in the Act of 1851. The arrangement of 1851 was not a mutual agreement in any real sense of the word. The grantees could not be said to be free agents. They were practically compelled to submit to all that the college demanded. Otherwise their old leases would have been run out in twenty years, and their improvements
  1038
  —including in some cases their family residences—would have been confiscated by the college. The Solicitor-General boasted that the college had held rigorously to the Act of 1851. Of course they had. But why? Simply because they profited by it. Owing to the scale adopted for fixing rents the income of the senior fellows was largely increased, besides being made more secure. The Solicitor-General said had rents gone down Trinity College would have suffered. Doubtless, but in that case he wondered whether Trinity College would have been content rigorously to abide by the arrangement. The admission of the Solicitor-General justified the demand now made for a fresh system of valuation of these head-rents. It was the evident intention of the Legislature that the college and the middlemen should share and share alike as to the ups and downs of value. But while Trinity College rents had gone up and kept up all these years, the middlemen's rents had gone lower and lower. He maintained there was nothing inequitable in the proposition that the balance should be restored; and the grantees of Trinity College be placed in such a position that they would be able to sell their estates to their tenants without prospect of loss.
  How was this to be done? The plan which he suggested was that the grantees of Trinity College lands, and the tenants of lands held under Church perpetuity leases should be able to go into Court and obtain a revision of their rents, so that they would be proportionate to the rents they received from their sub-tenants. Purchase could then proceed throughout upon the revised rentals. The purchase advance for the holdings would be calculated, as the Bill provides, upon the judicial rents; and the amount due in respect of the head-rent would be proportioned in accordance with the revised rental. The grantees would, in that case, stand to receive some return for their capital and interest in the land, which would, at all events, ensure that they would not adopt a policy of "passive resistance." Further, he would call attention to the precedent established by the Tithe Rent-Charge (Ireland) Act, 1900. That Act provided that all tithe rent-charges should be

  1039
  varied in accordance with the average percentage of the variation of judicial rents. If tithe rent-charges could be so varied, why not head-rents? Tithes had been reduced by as much as 28 per cent. and he could see no reason why this system of revision should not be applied to the head-rents. The machinery was in existence, and ready to hand. It might be easily and quickly applied, so as to remove what was undoubtedly a serious obstacle to the scheme of this Bill. He might point out that occupying sub-grantees in perpetuity were admitted by the Land Act of 1887 to the benefits of the Act of 1881. A statutory perpetuity grant was thus varied by Parliament in favour of occupying tenants. What Parliament has done Parliament might be reasonably asked to do again. It might be argued that the superior landlord does not want to sell and that no proportion of the loss should fall upon him. He thought the answer to that was that the State wished the sale to take place; and it was manifestly unfair that all the loss should fall upon the middle landlord. As he had shown, the practical result of leaving this difficulty untouched would be to hinder land purchase in a great number of cases and interpose a serious obstacle to the complete success of the Act.
  Clause (Trinity College and church perpetuity leases.)
  "Holders of land under ecclesiastical perpetuity leases and Trinity College leases may apply to the Land Commission to have their rents reduced proportionately to the reductions of rent granted to their tenants; and the Land Commission shall reduce such rents accordingly, and shall, in the case of any holding subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to before the passing of the Act of 1896, make a further reduction of ten per cent. on the rent payable for such holding."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMadmitted that the hon. Member had earnestly pleaded the cause of these people, but it would be inadvisable, he thought, to enter fully into the question then, because he understood it was the general wish of the House that the Report stage should be concluded that day. The hon. Member's
  1040
  proposal opened up a vista of controversial questions, which if entered into fully would take up so much time as to defeat the object they all had at heart. The hon. Member had not taken into account the fact that there might be more than one middleman, and he did not perhaps give as much allowance as he might for many provisions in the Bill, which assisted the class whose cause he had championed. His (the Chief Secretary's) chief reason for insisting that the bonus should go to the vendor was to help the class to whom the hon. Member had referred. Further than that he could not go, and he would ask the hon. Member to accept that assurance, and not to think that he was insensible of the importance of the question he had raised.
  MR. DILLONsaid the expressions of impatience from his colleagues were addressed not to the merits of the proposal, but to the length of the speech of the hon. Member. Unless Members made up their minds to present their case within moderate limits they could not under the circumstances expect to obtain a fair hearing. He and many of his colleagues strongly sympathised with the view of the hon. Member, and they greatly feared that unless some such proposal were accepted the £5,000 grant to Trinity College would have no effect whatever in facilitating the sale of lands to the Trinity tenants. The whole sum would be grabbed by Trinity College, and middlemen and tenants would be left exactly in the same position as if no grant had been made.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that in Committee the Chief Secretary contemplated taking further action, either by Royal Commission or a Committee of the House, to investigate the entire question. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would indicate some plan in order that the matter might not remain where it was.
  MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to say that the matter would be looked into in the autumn.
  MR. FLAVINsaid there was a strong feeling on the part of Irish

  1041
  Members in regard to this matter which affected about 1,000 tenants in North Kerry. He would give one case as a sample. A middleman, who formerly received £2,735 in rents from his tenants, now received only £1,641, but in the same period his rent to Trinity College had been increased from £954 to £1,255, so that while the amount he received had decreased by 40 per cent., the rental he paid had increased by 30 per cent. It appeared therefore that Trinity College had got the best of the deal. He hoped the Chief Secretary would see that there was fair play all round.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LONSDALEformally moved a new clause.
  Clause (Mill farms).
  "A tenant of a holding upon which a mill is situated may make application to the Court, and the Court may direct that the non-agricultural portion of the holding shall be separated from the agricultural portion thereof, and may determine the proportion of rent to be allocated to each portion, and may thereupon fix a fair rent for the agricultural portion of the holding, to which the Land Law Acts shall then apply as if it was a separate holding."—(Mr. Lonsdale.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WYNDHAMreplied that it would not be possible to enter upon an Amendment of the Act of 1896 if they intended to finish the Report stage that day.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'as amended by this Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDtook the opportunity of pointing out that he and his colleagues had not put down any Amendments to that stage of the Bill, but it should not be taken as meaning that they were at all satisfied with the form in which the Bill left Committee. There were a number of
  1042
  important points raised in Committee on which they could not get their way and which in the ordinary course they would have felt bound to raise again and discuss on the Report stage. But the circumstances under which they met were of an extraordinary character. If they discussed all the points on which they were dissatisfied it would take some days, and at that time of the session the passage of the Bill would be imperilled. Therefore they had abstained from placing any Amendments on the paper. They had some reason to complain that the chief measure of the session was not brought forward earlier, so that there would have been time for discussion at the present stage. They had, however, to face the inevitable and do nothing to imperil the passage of the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *MR T. W. RUSSELLmoved the omission of the proviso to Clause 1. He said the zone for the first-term rents stipulated that the tenant should get a reduction of at least 20 per cent. and not more than 40 per cent. He did not seek to alter that, but to leave out what followed namely—
  "Provided that in the case of a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to before the passing of the Act of 1896, the Land Commission may, if they think it equitable, and if the purchase agreement so provides treat the holding for the purposes of this section as a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed since the passing of the Act of 1896."
  That was to say, that a tenant farmer going into a holding with a first-term rent had a right under the zone to a 20 per cent. reduction, but if he could be bamboozled into signing an agreement to be transferred to the second zone that right was taken away and his reduction limited to ten per cent. What was the object of that? He did not think this was a fair proposal, and it ought to be left out.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 25, to leave out from beginning of the line to the end of line 3, page 2"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'may,' in line 27, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that when they were discussing the first clause of the Bill he contemplated that a solution of the difficulty which had arisen might have been found by putting a complementary proviso providing that in some cases second-term rents might be turned into first-term rents. He thought, however, that under the circumstances, they must adhere to this proposal as it was left in the Committee stage. Clause 1 read with Clause 5, and he thought it was a good solution of a difficult question which had been arrived at by the consent of hon. Members representing various parts of Ireland. Therefore he should do all in his power to maintain it.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that upon that statement he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALYin moving the Amendment standing in his name said he thought it would be better to have the definition in the way he suggested rather than have a new definition imported into the clause. There was no such thing known to the law as a large farm. There were a number of cases of very great hardship, in his judgment, where the tenant had been compelled to keep his land in grass because of a covenant forced down his throat by an old lease. Be that as it might, it seemed to him that the true test should be whether he could get a fair rent fixed or not. That was a safe and certain plan, and to tamper with Mr. Gladstone's legislation by fresh exclusions was a most dangerous course. Such technicalities caused difficulties never dreamt of by those who inserted them, and if it was taken in the form he suggested, he knew that a very large number in his constituency who were interested in the matter would appreciate it. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 23, to leave out from the word 'a' to end of line 25, and insert the words 'holding' to which the Land Law (Ireland) Acts apply.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he was sorry to have to differ from his hon. and learned friend, and he urged the Chief Secretary to stick to the words of the clause. He believed there was scarcely a sentence in the whole Bill which would be received with more satisfaction, and there was no part in which this would be more intensely felt than in Meath and West Meath, where the mass of the small holders suffered just as keenly as the people of Con-naught. One of the largest agriculturists in Leinster wrote to him stating that it would be almost better to retain the £3,000 or £5,000 limit in the Bill than let the grass men buy without cultivation. Quite 40 per cent. of the sales would depend upon the proper arrangement of this question. This large farmer who wrote to him was one of those who would be shut out by the limit, but he said that on public grounds it would be a lesser evil than to employ the taxpayers' money to stereotype the grass question. There were districts in Ireland where the Bill would work no good for many years if the grass men got the right without cultivation. Under the law as it stood at present, the graziers had quite enough facilities out of the public funds for carrying out a system which was pauperising the people of the country. What the National Convention desired was encouragement for tillage and employment, and the Resolution of the Convention was met by the clause as it stood. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could rely upon it if he stood by the words of this clause that the result would be to create almost universal satisfaction amongst the masses of the people of, Ireland.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he differed from the hon. Member for Cork upon this matter. He thought that under this Bill any man who had a holding to which the Land Acts applied, ought not to be debarred from the benefits of the Act, and, without any desire to stereotype graziers, he thought the clause as it stood would shut out a large number

  1045
  of men who held judicial rents. These words were exceedingly difficult of interpretation. Anyone who had followed the discussion on the land question in Court, knew that over the word "mainly" the most terrific fights had taken place, and that one word had put more money into the lawyers' pockets than would have paid half the rents involved. He could understand the laughter on the Front Ministerial Bench. The junior Member for Trinity College had a really good time over that word. These tenants had to prove that holdings had been so used for five years before the passing of this Act, and that would be rather difficult. He agreed with the hon. Member for Louth that the safest way was to walk in the old path.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would endeavour to persuade the hon. Member for Cork City that if he accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth he should not let in the graziers. That was the one thing he should not do, because the holdings were any non-residential grass holdings and any residential holdings of a higher value than £100 a year. It could not be urged against this Amendment that it would enable graziers to buy up land that might otherwise be purchased by the tenants. The hon. and learned Member asked him why he did not leave the matter as it stood. On the Committee stage he stated that it would be necessary to scrutinise those words very carefully to see what their legal bearing and interpretation would be. After consideration he had concluded that those words would give rise to a great deal of litigation. If they took the words suggested by the hon. Member for Louth, they would know where they were, and if they attempted to describe the case in the Act they might get into a difficulty. Further down on the Paper he had an Amendment on page 3 to leave out lines 7 to 12, the object of which was to apply for the purpose, for example, of putting an evicted tenant back upon a holding and for dealing with congestion of the limitations as to purchase. The £7,000 limit would be defined and construed in accordance with this provision. Unless they ran the risk of not being able to give a man
  1046
  something equal to the holding he had lost, and not being able to move a large farmer in order to remove congestion in that vicinity, they must put a liberal interpretation here, and take a liberal definition. Unless they did this the £7,000 limit would become inoperative.
  MR. LEAMYreminded his hon. friend that the object of forming this clause was to give the benefits of the Bill to a class who were not included as the Bill was originally drawn. If the clause were passed as it stood the constituents of his hon. friend the Member for Louth would undoubtedly benefit, but he was not quite sure that the tenants of a number of pretty large farms would be particularly pleased by discovering that so many of them would be excluded.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he would look with considerable jealousy on any Amendment which would interfere with the arrangement which was formerly made. It was no sympathy with lawyers that would induce him to say that the words in the Bill should remain, but surely after the experience they had had on questions of construction nobody could be deceived as to the meaning of the words in the Bill as they stood "mainly used for tillage and dairying purposes." As between the words in the Bill and the words in the Amendment he would say that ninety-nine out of a hundred of his constituents would be in favour of the words in the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said the result of keeping the clause as it stood would be that no evicted tenant would be able to get an advance up to £7,000 for anything except a large farm which had been used for five years mainly for tillage or dairying purposes. He was perfectly confident that they would exclude some of the largest evicted tenants in Ireland whom they wished to restore to their original holdings by permitting advances up to £7,000.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question "That those words be there inserted in the Bill" put, and agreed to.
  MR. BUTCHER, moved an Amendment making the section applicable to holdings "in respect of which the Land Commissioners have given a certificate under section six of this Act." He said the object of the Amendment was to carry out the provisions of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words 'as defined by this Act,' and insert the words 'in respect of which the Land Commission have given a certificate under section six of this Act,'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought these words made the intention clearer. It was all the more necessary to make the intention clear because of the Amendment which he accepted of the hon. Member for Mayo. In the definition of congestion there was originally a standard of area as well as a standard of price, and at the instance of the hon. Member for Mayo he omitted the standard of area and confined it to holdings of the annual value of £5. He urged on the Committee, and he thought the Committee agreed with him, that the definition of what was a congested estate was not consistent with an estate on which half the holdings were of £5 annual value. It might be an estate of small dairy farms. The true definition of a congested estate was an estate which was certified to need aid because of the wants of the tenants upon it. In Sub-section 4 of Clause 6 there was the true test of what was a congested estate. Sub-section 5 was only a Treasury check. The Government was not to say that an estate was congested merely because the holdings were of so much value, so that it was proper to take as the true definition the circumstances of the tenants and not the Treasury check on the money in the case. It was all the more necessary to do that since at the instance of the hon. Member he took out the standard of area.
  MR. DILLONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. He thought the action taken by the rish Party deserved a considerable
  1048
  amount of recognition from the Government and also from hon. Members opposite. They had abstained from bringing forward a number of points on which they were extremely interested. On the point dealt with by the hon. Member for Waterford they exercised a considerable self-restraint. The Amendment now before the House might seem small, but it raised a question of far-reaching importance, because that touched the whole of the matter of the definition of a congested estate. That very question of the definition of a congested estate was one which was debated at considerable length in Committee, and which he would have very much desired to press again on the Report Stage, but he abstained from doing so in accordance with an agreement come to by his Party. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman without any serious cause making any change in this machinery. He would like to know if he was correct in saying that this Amendment, which exempted certain estates from the restrictions on the operation of Clause 1 as regarded the zones, and as it originally stood exempted all estates defined in this section as congested estates, now limited that exemption and limited it on the extraordinary statement of the Chief Secretary that when an estate fell within the definition of a holding of £5 value it might be prosperous. To assume that they might be, was to his mind a most extraordinary doctrine, because he held that the limit of £5 was too low, and that in this great measure of policy for the future resettlement of Ireland £10 ought to be the lowest limit for an economical holding. This Amendment involved the assumption that land valued at £5 a year might be prosperous land. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept contentious Amendments of this kind.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid if the Amendment was not accepted there would be estates which would not be entitled to any of the benefits of the Bill
  MR. DILLON: What are the benefits from which they will be excluded?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would take the advance of £7,000. A congested estate if it

  1049
  satisfied the first definition, but without satisfying the others would lose the benefit of all the preceding sub-sections of Clause 1, and yet inasmuch as the Commissioners did not certify it would not get the benefit of this clause. So it would be absolutely left out in the cold.
  MR. DILLON: What are the other benefits?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid what they wanted in order that an estate should get the benefit was that it should conform to this definition of the £5 value. For instance, if half the estate consisted of small farms and the other half say of six large farms, such an estate could not have any of the benefits of Clause 1.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 35, to leave out the words 'ten acres in area and.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DILLONsaid he gladly admitted that the Chief Secretary's Amendment was a great improvement on the present definition, but he wished to record his conviction that a limit of £5 was a great mistake in a great operation of this character. It was too narrow a restraint on the discretion of the Commissioners. There was force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that there was not sufficient land to go round; but the Commissioners should have some discretion, and naturally they would use the land at their disposal to increase the holdings below £5 in rateable value before giving land to holdings above that value; but he knew of districts where they would have sufficient land, and why, in such districts, should the Commissioners be forbidden to give an addition to farms which were of £6 or £7 rateable value? He regretted that the Government could not see their way to alter the limit.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 40, to leave out the word, 'a,' and insert the word, 'that.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 6, to leave out the words, 'five hundred,' and insert the words, 'one thousand.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'five hundred' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DILLONsaid he wished to take the opportunity of saying that this was a very generous proposal of the Chief Secretary, and that the right hon. Gentleman had fully and honourably redeemed every promise he had made.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'one thousand' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, to leave out lines 7 to 12, inclusive, and insert the words 'Provided that the limitation in this Sub-section may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts be exceeded, where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 29, alter the word 'vendor,' to insert the words 'or (in the case of an estate purchased from the Land Judge) to the former owner of the estate or a person nominated by the Land Commission as his representative."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 30, to leave out the words 'to the vendor.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 34, at end, to add the words '(3) In entering into agreements for the resale of any land to the vendor of an estate the Land Commission shall have regard to the amount of land available for the enlargement

  1051
  of holdings where they consider such enlargement necessary. (4) Where an advance is made in pursuance of this section the Judicial Commissioner may, if he thinks it equitable, on the application of any person who, at the date of the sale of the land to the Land Commission, was entitled to any estate in remainder or reversion in that land order, upon such terms and conditions as he may think reasonable, that the land so resold shall devolve in accordance with the terms of the settlement which at the date of the sale to the Laud Commission affected it."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he felt bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment carried out fully and satisfactorily the undertaking he gave in Committee. It certainly made the power of the Estate Commissioners as complete as one could reasonably desire. He believed that the generous treatment of the evicted tenants would be, to a large extent, the touchstone by which the administration of this Act would be judged in Ireland. It was as much in the interest of the landlords as the tenants that this question should be settled in a generous way with no list of prescriptions, and that seemed to him to be the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the current tenants would be excluded under this Amendment.
  Proposed Amendment amended—
  "In line 5, by leaving out the words 'an advance is made,' and inserting the words 'any land is resold to the vendor.'"—(Colonel Wyndham-Quin.)
  Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when the Bill was in Committee the Member for Cambridge joined with him in pointing out the difficulties that might arise from shadowy claims to the foreshore. It was desirable that on the sale of an estate with the strand, the whole of the tenants on the estate should not be shut out from the use of the sand, gravel, or seaweed which they had long enjoyed by what he admitted was a shadowy right. He moved.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 39, after the word 'pasturage,' to insert the words "acquiring foreshore
  1052
  or land for raising sand, gravel, or seaweed, or for the construction of piers."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR ROBERT FITZGERALDsaid he hoped the Chief Secretary would see his way to accept this Amendment, because it would stop a great deal of litigation and quarrelling, and place the right to the foreshore in the hands of a body of trustees who could settle all disputes as to the raising of sand and gravel and gathering of sea-weed.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the words of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth as they stood, but he would agree to the following words, "the raising of sand or gravel, the cutting or gathering of sea-weed."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would take anything he could get and be thankful.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  In page 3, line 39 after the word 'pasturage,' to insert the words 'the raising of sand or gravel, the cutting or gathering of seaweed.'"—(Mr. Wyndham)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'where an estate or untenanted land is vested in them'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid that this was one of the Amendments which, he was glad to say, obliterated every distinction between one class of tenants and another; and it would make most decidedly for the peace of the country and the success of the Bill. The Amendment was simple and clear.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that his object was to make the matter clear. He had also other Amendments by which he meant to put the direct sales on the same

  1053
  level as the sales through the Land Commission.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 9, to leave out the words 'the estate,' and insert the word 'estates.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 9, at end to insert the words 'purchased or proposed to be purchased under this Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 8, line 34, at beginning, to insert the words 'In the case of the sale of an estate.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 8, line 36, to leave out the word 'an,' and insert the word 'the.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 8, lines 36 and 37, to leave out the words, 'purchased by them or by the Congested Districts Board.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CLANCYsaid that this was an Amendment in the direction of an Amendment he himself had proposed, and it appeared to him satisfactory.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he had entertained great doubts of doing as much in the case of direct purchase as he had contemplated in the case of purchase by the Land Commission. He had been working at the problem during the last week, and he was satisfied that his proposed Amendment would work satisfactorily.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 9, line 3, after the word 'agreement,' to insert the words, 'by all persons interested.'"—(Sir John Golomb.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid bethought this Amendment went further than was necessary. He quite agreed that an opportunity should be given for coming to an agreement, but he would prefer the words "between the owner of the estate and the owner of the intervening interest."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBaccepted the suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 9, line 3, after the word 'agreement,' to insert the words 'between the owner of the estate and the owner of the intervening interest.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 11, line 39, to leave out from the word 'of,' to the word 'by,' in line 41, and insert 'section four of.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 12, line 14, after the word 'cutting' to insert the words 'or making.'"
  "In page 12, line 21, to leave out the words 'or making.'"—(Mr. J. P. Farrell.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 13, to leave out the words 'and shall hold office during pleasure.'"
  "In page 13, line 13, at end to insert the words (4) 'The Estates Commissioners shall hold office during pleasure, but any Estates Commissioner shall only be removed from his office by an Order in Council, and any such Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void.'"
  "In page 13, line, 14, at end, to insert the words 'nominated or.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid this Amendment might seem a small matter, but it was an important one, because it affected the whole administration of the Act. He was not quite sure that they had gained anything by inserting the Lord Lieutenant instead of the Judicial Commissioner. It was of the greatest importance that the new Estates Commission should not be packed by the creatures of any one. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 29, after the word, 'may' to insert the words 'after consultation with the Land Commission and.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  MR. WYNDHAMaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 29, to leave out from the word 'may' to the word 'such,' in line 30, and to insert the word 'nominate.'"
  "In page 13, line 30, after the word 'the,' to insert the word 'land.'" "In page 13, line 30, at end to insert the words 'with the consent of the Treasury as to number and remuneration.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  On Sub-section 9—
  "Sales of estates to the Estate Commissioners and sales by those Commissioners to tenants and others may be negotiated and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons approved by the Estates Commissioners at a fixed price or percentage, according to a scale to be settled by the Estates Commissioners with the assent of the Treasury, and such price or percentage shall be paid as part of the expenses of the Land Commission."
  SIR W. HART DYKEmoved to leave out the words "and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons approved by the Estates Commissioners," and to insert "by any agents or solicitors nominated with the approval of the Estates Commissioners by the vendors, or, in the absence of such nomination, by persons approved by the Commission."
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 38, to leave out the words 'and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons,' and insert the words 'by any
  1056
  land agent or solicitor nominated by the landlord and.'"—(Sir W. Hart Dyke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it seemed to him that the object of the Amendment was merely to call attention to the fact that the land agents were in many cases the proper persons to be employed. He should accept the Amendment because he believed the agents were probably the best persons, having full knowledge, to be employed; but the Government must reserve the right not to select them if necessary.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had no objection to the land agents being compensated, provided that they were not to get anything out of the tenants' pockets. He should vote against anything of the kind. But the agents did not stand alone; there were the land clerks, and similar results would follow in their case, because they would be thrown out of employment as well as the agents.
  MR. DILLONsaid if they could be quite assured that this compensation to the agents would conclude the whole business, he, for one, would not raise any objection, but certainly not out of the funds of the Bill. No doubt many of these agents had lost considerably by the Act, some of them having in the past received as much as 5 per cent. on rents of thousands a year. He did not think that if the agents were reappointed in connection with the settlement of the estate that would be any great advantage, as there were other persons equally qualified to effect the sales. He did not think that people who had been receiving such large incomes would be anxious to hasten the sales of land. Of course he did not blame the agents for that, and he made no charge against them, but it was only human nature that they should feel the seriousness of the change in their position. He hoped that this would be the last proposal of the kind, and that if the House agreed to this Amendment it ought to be regarded as a settlement so far as land agents were concerned.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid he did not intend to propose the other Amendment upon this subject.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that with regard to the remarks that had fallen from the hon. Member for South Tyrone and the hon. Member for Last Mayo respecting the agents, he might say that there was no intention to extend the matter of compensation after this. It was not for the Government to effect it, but, having ascertained that it was agreed to by all parties, the Government had no objection to the Amendment, and on the ground that it would terminate the matter, he had accepted it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDhad no desire to say anything with regard to the landlords or the agents on that occasion, but he certainly thought that the landlords would be wanting in gratitude if they did not compensate men who had served them so well and zealously and had undertaken duties which were very trying and, he could not avoid adding, unpleasant. Indeed he considered that the land agents were more in trouble in Ireland than the landlords themselves, and he hoped if the Amendment were to be accepted it would bring to an end all further obligations in the same direction. He might say that in common justice the landlords ought to do something for their agents who had worked for them in defiance of all laws—human and divine. But he would only assent to it on the condition that it could not come out of any of the money for the free grant and sale.
  MR. FIELDsaid he would like to say something on behalf of the clerks who had worked and assisted the land agents in this matter.
  *THE SPEAKERruled that that point was not then before the House.
  *MR. JORDANdid not think that they should re-endow the agents, and he for one should not support the Amendment if any compensation were to be given out of the bonus or out of the funds required for purchasing
  1058
  the land. This was really a private matter. The agents had been paid their salaries and commissions for their work in connection with the collection of rent, and have been paid by and for the job for many years, and he saw no reason for any compensation being given to them nor to their clerks.
  *SIR JOHN ROLLESTONagreed with the Member for South Tyrone that the land clerks should be compensated, and he was glad to say that the land agents had already agreed to do this. Land agents had in their time to perform many difficult and delicate duties. The landlords of Ireland lived in every part of the world. The agents had performed the duties of the landlords—who were only occasionally resident in Ireland—on the Bench and on the Councils they had performed their duties satisfactorily. They had assisted in establishing creameries and light railways. He therefore supported the Amendment, and hoped that the land agents might receive some consideration in the final settlement, as they most of all could speed the happy and rapid progress which it was desired the policy of the Measure should make.
  MR. ROCHEsaid the agents had caused much of the trouble in Ireland, and in the County of Galway some of the agents were at that moment serving notices upon the tenants so as to lead up to their eviction.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that was a matter which had nothing to do with the Amendment before the House. They could not discuss the mode of conducting the business of every landed proprietor on that question.
  MR. SLOANsaid there was one thing he should like to discuss—namely, the position of the agents' clerks.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise now.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 14, line 2, after the word 'Lieutenant,' to insert the words, 'and after consultation with the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.'"
  "In page 14, line 14, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'those reports and all rules under the last preceding sub-section.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 15, line 6, at end, to insert the words, 'In this sub-section the expression "the annual income," shall include the annual amount payable in respect of the premiums on any policy of insurance where those premiums are charged upon land.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR LEWIS MCIVERin the same clause proposed to insert the words—"Where the purchase money thereof is sufficient to discharge all claims affecting the same and." He noticed that the Chief Secretary had an Amendment dealing with the same point by merely proposing to insert the words "for his own use," but he ventured to think that his own proposal would make the matter more clear. They both had the same object in view—i.e., to prevent the owner of an insolvent estate running away with the arrears.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 15, line 17, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words 'where the purchase money thereof is sufficient to discharge all claims affecting the same and.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was of opinion that his own words covered the object of the hon. Member. Of course, if he found they did not do so adequately, he would, in another place, adopt his suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 15, line 22, after the word "arrears" to insert the words 'for his own use.'"—Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HEMPHILLin line 27, proposed to substitute "may" for "shall." He wished to leave it optional with the Land Commission to make investigation through their own officers.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 15, line 27, to leave out the word 'shall' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONopposed, and urged it was most desirable that the direction to the Commission to do certain things, without charge to the person entitled to the purchase money, should be obligatory.
  MR. ATKINSONpointed out that "may" was more in harmony with the substance of the provision.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'may' be there inserted in the Bill" put, and agreed to.
  MR. BUTCHER, in moving a proviso to Sub-section 2, said his object was to provide that where there had been no default or delay on the part of the encumbrancer or other person in establishing his title he should not come under the provision of Sub-section 2. Delay might be caused, for instance, by pressure of business in the Land Commission, and, as it would be due to no default on the part of the encumbrancer, there was no reason why he should be subjected to the penalty provided by the sub-section. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 16, line 31, after the word 'advances,' to insert the words, 'provided that this sub-section shall not apply in any case where the Land Commission are satisfied that it is not owing to any act or default of such person that his title is not established, and the amount of his claim invested us aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that while he had no particular objection to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member, he was

  1061
  rather nervous about it. If the money was not distributed quickly it would prevent purchase.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that nothing could be more injurious than the Amendment.
  MR. BUTCHER: I moved it simply in the interests of fair play.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would show how it would work. Generally speaking, encumbrancers in Ireland secured interest at the rate of 4½ or 5 per cent. They were absolutely interested in interposing every possible delay in the winding up of an estate, because their money was secure and they were receiving a higher rate of interest than they could possibly derive from any other investment. The object of this provision was to fix a date beyond which an encumbrancer would not get more than a certain rate of interest, so that it would be to the interest of everybody to expedite the winding up of the estate. If instead of having the rigid limit of twelve months the House inserted an elastic arrangement by which the high rate of interest should continue to accrue, unless the person interested was guilty of default, he really did not know when the winding up of an estate would be completed. In the meantime, the encumbrancer would be eating into the residue, because when the purchase money was invested it would bring in at most 3½ per cent., whereas interest would be running all that time at 4½ per cent.
  SIR LEWIS MCIVERsaid the hon. and learned Member had not met the question in the least. The Amendment was designed to meet the case of a man who had not been guilty of dilatory action, and who was not in default, but the hon. and learned Member had dealt only with the case of a man in default. Where the delay was not the fault of the encumbrancer himself there was no reason why he should be robbed of the interest to which he was entitled under his deed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTCHERmoved to omit Subsection 3. He had no objection to an
  1062
  encumbrancer being deprived of his interest if he was guilty of delay, but generally the encumbrancer had a covenant with the landlord for the payment of his interest, and he desired to know whether the sub-section would deprive him of that? If he still had the right to enforce his claim against the landlord the provision would be ineffective. The Chief Secretary should ensure that the mortgagee, if guilty of default, would lose his interest both out of the purchase money and also under his covenant, otherwise he would have no incentive to take steps to prove his title at all.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 16, line 34, to leave out Subsection (3)."—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALYdid not think there was much danger in the sense pointed out by the hon. and learned Member, but he was afraid that if these penalties were enforced landlords would at once withdraw their estates from sale. As far as he could see there was nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done. That was a very real danger; the hopes of a large body of tenants might be disappointed, and he put it to the Chief Secretary that there was some necessity for providing in some part of the Bill that a landlord having once put his estate into the process of purchase contemplated by the Act should be unable to withdraw it.
  MR. ATKINSONpointed out that the possibility of these penalties being imposed arose only after the sale. He agreed that if an encumbrancer was guilty of delay he should lose his interest both out of the purchase money and also under his covenant, and if the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment he would consider the matter, and, if necessary, have an Amendment inserted in another place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR LEWIS MCIVERsaid the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to make it clear that in future the word "agreement" would include proposals made to the Land Judge and accepted by him. That was the case under the Act of 1896, and he thought it should be so in the present Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 17, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'shall in the case of agreements entered into,' and insert the word 'sanctioned.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver,)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAMdid not think there was any substance in the point.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that no advances could be made until an agreement had been entered into between landlord and tenant, and Section 40 of the Act of 1896, to which the hon. Member referred, provided that an offer of the Land Judge to the tenant should be an agreement in order that the machinery of the Land Purchase Acts might apply. Where the hon. Member made a mistake was in supposing that this Bill enabled the Land Judge to sell directly where he could not sell before. It did nothing of the kind. All it did was to enable the Land Judge to sell an estate in his Court to the Land Commission, not to the tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought the Bill covered the point the hon. Member had in mind, but, if the hon. Member would see him in the course of the next few days and explain the matter more fully, if it was not met by the Bill he would see that it was dealt with in another place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn—
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 18, line 41, after the word 'cent.' to insert the words 'per annum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 19, line 31, to leave out the word 'interest,' and insert the word 'dividends.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 19, line 38, after the word 'advances,' to insert the words 'to them.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 19, line 39, to leave out the word 'interest,' and insert the word 'dividends.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Clause 38.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLmoved the omission of the clause. He said he desired to elicit information, and also to object to the source from which this grant was drawn. When the Irish Development Bill was introduced constitutional objections were raised, but many Members, believing the Chief Secretary had great objects in view, were willing to sacrifice their opinions on the matter. He was bound to say, however, that the Chief Secretary had placed in the hands of those who objected to this method of procedure a most tremendous weapon. He had demonstrated that the Fund would provide Dublin Castle with a purse for the perpetration of every job the Irish Government chose to allow, and the very first use made of it—this grant of £5,000 to Trinity College as hush money—was a job of the first magnitude. If Trinity College chose to make herself a pensioner of the British Government there was nothing more to be said from that standpoint. Trinity College had a great history, and he wished her to have a great future, but that future would not be secured by proceedings of this kind. He wished to know how the money was to be applied, and what it would do for either middlemen or tenants. In County Armagh Trinity College held the superior interest in an estate, the landlord was the middleman, and there were a considerable number of tenants.

  1065
  Under the Bill the middleman would undoubtedly be able to sell. What would happen? The middleman would claim to exercise his right to sell, and the superior interests of Trinity College would have to be dealt with. So far as he understood the Bill they would have to be dealt with in one of two ways either the middleman and the College must come together and agree, or the Land Commission must arbitrate and decide the value of the superior interests. Why was it to be assumed that Trinity College would lose by that transaction any more than the holder of any other superior interest? Trinity College was able to make its own bargain and defend its own rights. If the owner of the superior interest could not agree the matter could be arbitrated and decided like any other head-rent. Why should Trinity College be differentiated? The answer would be that Trinity College was a great national institution and ought not to be hampered in its work by any legislation for which the Government was responsible. What had been the course of procedure in regard to the redemption of head-rents in the past? Up to twenty-five years purchase had been paid for those head-rents. Was it asserted that if Trinity College got twenty-five years purchase it would be the loser? If so, it could only be the loser by the fact that those rents were unconscionable rents, which had never been touched by the Land Courts. If Trinity College lost it could only be by the fact that she had gained over and above all other landlords in Ireland. Who was to benefit by this £5,000 and how was it to be applied? Did the Government know of any arrangement by which the grant of this £5,000 was to be taken into account in fixing the rights of the middlemen? He wanted to know whether any of this £5,000 was to go towards enabling the middlemen to sell. How could they know that this £5,000 was not going to be locked up until it reached £50,000, and then a raid might be made upon it for some other object. He repeated his objection to the source from which this money was to be taken. When this question was discussed in Committee he said that if Trinity College lost by this Bill she ought to be recouped in an
  1066
  educational settlement that would take all creeds into consideration. With the national schools all over the country in an insanitary state—with earthen floors, windows out, and no sanitary requirements to many of them, it was a very tall order to take £5,000 out of the development grant at two days notice, every single shilling of which could have been used for a good purpose. It was a very large order to give this sum of money to the richest educational institution in the country, which, instead of helping the Government to settle this educational difficulty, had done everything in its power to retard it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would let in a little more light upon this "job" in favour of the richest educational institution in the country. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 20, line 35, to leave out Clause 38."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 38 to the word 'the,' in line 36, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. DILLONsaid that while it was perfectly true that the Irish Members were willing to agree that a portion of that grant should be taken to aid a land purchase scheme, they had no notion of it being devoted to such purposes as this. The protest raised by the hon. Member for Louth and the chairman of the Party against this money being allocated for any purpose except promoting Irish land purchase, was for the very reason that it might not be used for a purpose like this. He thought it was most irregular, and improper, and out of order to take a portion of this money, not yet appropriated by Parliament, by a clause in this Bill, and apply it to the purpose now proposed. He did not wish to prolong this debate because he recognised that it was idle for them to stop this "job." It was a most scandalous "job." There were only two points in connection with it upon which he felt bound to state his view. The only reason given in justification for this extraordinary proposal by the Chief Secretary was that it was for the benefit and advan

  1067
  of the 10,000 holders who were tenants under the middlemen of Trinity College, and that it would enable them to purchase. It would have no effect whatever in enabling them to purchase, because Trinity College had no power to fix the price of its own head-rents. Therefore, the middlemen would not be in a bit better position to sell, and they would not be encouraged to sell by this grant. It that were so, then this money was being obtained under false pretences, because it had been asked for in order to help the tenants to buy, and it would not help them in the least degree. It the right hon. Gentleman would put into the clause a prohibition, directing the Estates Commissioners to take into consideration this £5,000 when estimating the rents of Trinity College, that would remove a great deal of his opposition to this proposal, ft was merely a pretext to use the middleman as a means of obtaining £5,000, which would probably be devoted to a totally different purpose, and would not have an atom of effect in relieving the middlemen. This, in reality, was a pure and simple grab to get a grant to indemnify the College against a supposed loss. This grant was recommended by the Chief Secretary and by the hon. Member for Trinity College when they spoke of this College as a great national institution, which enjoyed the respect of all Irishmen and of which all Irishmen were proud. He absolutely denied that. It was not a national institution, and it did not enjoy the respect of the masses of the Irish people and they were not proud of it. It was an institution which had confined its great advantages to a narrow and limited section of the population, and which, throughout its long career, had been associated with ascendancy in Ireland. It was really a fortress of bigotry, and, to its disgrace be it said, that to this hour it was the chief barrier which stood between the Irish people and the advantages to be obtained by education. They sought to deny to the mass of the people of Ireland those advantages which they offered to a small section. How could they respect an institution of that kind and call it national. He agreed that it had produced a great many distinguished men,
  1068
  but not long ago it sent an hon. Member to this House pledged to resign his seat rather than grant a Catholic University to Ireland. Therefore he was not proud of Trinity College, and, if it persisted in this policy of narrow bigotry, he trusted the day was not far distant when the walls of bigotry erected round this institution would be torn down, and its revenues devoted to the national benefit.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that time did not permit him to develop the argument he put before the Committee upon this question if they were to get through the Report stage that afternoon. They could not devote much time to this question although some little time was due to the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The speech which they had just listened to seemed to raise two main points. The first was why they differentiated at all in respect of Trinity College, and the second was supposing they were right in differentiating, why did they take the money out of the Irish development grant. They differentiated in favour of Trinity College because in the first place it: held a statutory position in the past and in consequence had not been a, free agent in managing its own financial affairs. There was another point which he would pass over merely by saying that his opinion as to the position held by Trinity College did not coincide with the opinion which had just been given by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He would pass by that point because he wished to avoid controversy. As to preferential treatment they had to consider the peculiarity of tenure under Trinity College, and three or four years hence they might discover impediments to purchase which would have to be dealt with. He thought that such a precaution by way of an insurance fund would conduce to purchase and help the 9,000 or 10,000 holders under Trinity College. Although in his opinion it might not be proper to say that they must take into account this money he did think the fact that Trinity would not lose in consequence of any decision was likely materially to accelerate these proceedings and carry them through successfully. He held quite distinctly that the addition of this grant would assist the purchase of their holdings by these 9,000 or 10,000

  1069
  holders of the soil who were at the bottom of this complicated system of tenure. Now he came to the second branch of his argument, namely, why had they had recourse to the Irish development grant? If he could have had recourse to money voted by Parliament he should have preferred it, but he could not. The financial arrangements of this Bill must be taken as one. He would submit to the hon. Member in the first place chat originally they all hoped and believed that the equivalent grant to Ireland would be £150,000, and it was only by making many representations that the Treasury granted £185,000. In the second place it was urged by some of the critics sitting for English constituencies that if they were to have land purchase this education equivalent should go into the land purchase account. He had got this equivalent grant, but he admitted that he had not been uniformly successful. It was not, however, in his power to stand out against those representations. That being so he had no other course but to take the money from the Irish development grant.
  MR. T. M. HEALYclaimed that in this matter they ought to have the support of Scotch Members. While his opinions had undergone no change he was very sorry that time did not allow him to put on the paper an Amendment which he had drawn, and without which provision this clause would have no effect and not one shilling would ever go into the pockets of Trinity College. The conditions were so complicated, and the middlemen would be so reluctant, that they would infinitely prefer the present conditions. He asked the Government to inquire into the matter during the autumn, and he suggested that after some two years or so the Government might issue a Commission to inquire and report as to the best means of investing the lands in the occupying tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be very glad to consider that suggestion.
  MR. BLAKEpointed nut that special circumstances were created by this Act of Parliament which had been defended upon different grounds. It was said that this proposal
  1070
  was necessary to enable these tenants to obtain the benefits of land purchase, but unless in fixing the value of the superior interests this grant was taken into account those benefits would not accrue. In granting this £5,000 a year it should be made clear that in determining the value this grant should be taken into account and it should not be left to probabilities or conjectures. The object for which the money was claimed by the Chief Secretary should be secured in the Bill itself. It was important that this grant should be secured for Irish purposes for all time, and it was not right or proper that the disposition of it should be left to the Government of the day or that it should be disposed of in any other way than in a satisfactory constitutional manner. The form had to be altered because the grant was to be made perpetual, but the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and himself had insisted that the substance should be retained in the same form, and that only after debate in the House should the money be applied.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the Government ought to give some answer to the points which had been raised. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had the same object in view as they had. He had a strong objection to Trinity College being placed in a different position to other institutions. The Chief Secretary said that Trinity College was not going to make a penny by this proposal, and that it was only intended to secure Trinity College from loss. Would the right hon. Gentleman make good his own words and insert a proviso that the money should be devoted only to facilitating land purchase in Ireland in order to give these 10,000 tenants the advantage of it? The only difference between them was that they did not think the words of the Clause fulfilled that intention.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 20, line 35, at beginning, to insert the words, 'Subject to the provision of the last preceding section.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 21, line 19, to leave out the words 'of seventy thousand pounds mentioned in,' and insert the words 'payable under.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 21, line 23, after the word 'grant' to insert the words 'substituted for the grant.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 22, line 30, after the words 'per cent.,' to insert the words 'per annum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 22, line 31, after the words 'per cent.,' to insert the words 'per annum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 23, line 7, at end, to insert the words '(2) The purchase annuity shall be paid until the whole of the advance in respect of which it is payable is ascertained in manner prescribed by the Treasury to have been repaid."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the rules for carrying out the Amendment would be laid before Parliament. On a previous occasion they had great difficulty in getting an account of what the Treasury based its proceedings on.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could give that assurance.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 23, line 19, at end, to add, the words '(3) Any rules under this section shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before both Houses of Parliament."'—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. BUTCHERmoved as an Amendment to Clause 47 that the vendor of an estate should pay out of the bonus money an amount not exceeding 3 per cent. of the purchase money in discharge of the costs incidental to the sale. In common with some others he on a former occasion in connection with the matter of the bonus used the term "bribe," which was not grateful to the ears of the Chief Secretary. He suggested that most Courts would regard money given to a vendor to induce him to sell as a bribe. He did not intend to repeat the speech which he made formerly. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER "Hear, hear."] He was glad this statement received the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he hoped they would show their gratitude by supporting the Amendment, which was a most reasonable one. He said at once that he recognised that there were objections to taking the whole of the bonus and putting it into the purchase money, and, therefore, he did not intend to move the second part of the Amendment standing in his name, which proposed that the balance of the bonus ought to be treated as part of the purchase money. He intended to confine himself entirely to the first part of the Amendment which proposed that costs up to a certain point should be paid out of the bonus. In making his proposal he was only carrying out the expressed intentions of the Government themselves. He found those intentions expressed most clearly in the original draft of the bill in Clause 43 Sub-section (1) which was as follows—
  "For the purpose of aiding the sale of estates under this Act, and making contributions towards the expenses incidental to the redemption of superior and intervening interests, the investigation of titles, the distribution of purchase money and other like matters, the Land Commission may, in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time, out of advances by the National Debt Commissioners from the said fund, pay to the vendor of each estate sold a percentage determined according to the scale set forth in the First Schedule to this Act."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman agreed with my Amendment to leave these words out.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid that was not so. The the sub-section expressed the purpose which the Government thought justified the bonus. It was for the

  1073
  purpose of aiding sales, and he desired to give effect to that intention. He fully admitted that under the Bill as originally drafted their intentions might have been frustrated, because the the words of Clause 43 were not sufficiently strong to ear-mark the bonus for the purpose of paying these costs. He proposed to ear-mark it and devote it to the purpose expressed in the Government's own words. He believed that probably ninety-nine out of every 100 hon. Members who read the Bill were under the impression at the time of the Second Reading that the costs would be paid in that manner, and he should say that a very much larger proportion of the outside public were under that belief. He justified this proposal not merely on the ground that it carried out the intention of the Government, but also on the ground that it was fair, desirable, and reasonable in itself. Would not every prudent landlord who sold under the Bill apply a portion of the bonus towards paying the costs? Would not he apply a sum not exceeding 3 per cent. to that purpose, and leave the purchase money for the benefit of the estate? His desire was to make the imprudent landlord do what the prudent landlord would do. They were told that this bonus was a free gift from the State to the landlord, and that they ought not to hamper him with regard to the application of the money. They should remember when they talked of a free gift that the landlord was part owner, and that there were others who ought to benefit by the sale of the estate. He asked hon. Members to deal fairly between all the different persons interested. He thought it would be right to say that 3 per cent. of the bonus should be applied to the payment of costs, leaving the landlord the other 9 per cent. He was speaking in the interest of what he thought was fair on both sides. He was told that unless they gave the tenant for life the whole of the 12 per cent. they did not offer him sufficient inducement to sell. He believed if a landlord got, as hon. Gentlemen opposite desired him to get, a fair price for his land, and if in addition to that he got 9 per cent. of the total bonus money for his own use, that ought to operate very fairly. He asked
  1074
  the Chief Secretary to accept the Amendment in the interest of fair play all round. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "in page 24, line 6, at end, to insert the words '(3) The vendor shall, out of the percentage payable to him under this section, pay and discharge such of the costs of and incidental to the sale as would but for this provision be payable out of the purchase money of the estate. Provided that the amount of the costs so payable shall not exceed 3 per cent. on the amount of the purchase money of the estate.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was really unable to accept the Amendment. He had lately endeavoured to convince his hon. and learned friend that this was an Amendment that could not be accepted. He did not like to develop his argument at any length against it now, but he would point out that while many people looked at the bonus from the point of view of the financial position of the landlord, he himself looked at it also from the point of view of the remainder-man. The hon. Member for York said he wished to be fair to all parties. He never knew in which capacity the hon. Member was coming forward — whether in the interest of the landlord, the encumbrancer, or the remainder-man. The bonus was applied where help was most needed, to enable the vendor to sell, and he must maintain his position in this matter.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 24, line 9, to leave out the words 'scale of percentages,' and insert the word 'percentage.'
  "In page 24, line 12, to leave out the word 'scale,' and insert the word 'percentage.'"
  "In page 24, line 17, at end, to insert the won is 'or to any estate sold by a mortgagee in possession.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALYmoved an Amendment that Clause 47, should not apply to any estate as to which an absolute order

  1075
  for sale was made in the Land Judge's Court prior to 1st January, 1901, where such order, after the passing of this Act, had been discharged. He did not know whether the Chief Secretary was cognisant of the fact that the Land Judge's Court could refuse to give any bonus on a sale in the Land Registry Court. The only result of that refusal would be that every sensible man would withdraw his case from the Land Registry Court in order to get the bonus, and unless there was a provision that, on being withdrawn, he would get no bonus, they would have the Registry Court high and dry and all the work thrown on the Estates Commissioners. It seemed to him that to provide that a landlord should get any bonus under these conditions was simply to invite him to take his estate out of the Registry Court. His idea was that he should not be allowed to take out the estate, and that if he did he should get no bonus. There should be no inducement to take an estate out. It appeared to him that, unless some Amendment like this was arrived at, there was extraordinary risk of the land shark and the speculator coming forward again in the Land Judge's Court. He saw nothing to prevent wealthy financiers like Rothschild and Pierpont Morgan entering into transactions by which they would be able to get a bonus of 12 per cent., while at the same time hanging up estates interminably and cheating the tenants out of their rights. He did not know that his Amendment was the most perfect device that could be adopted to prevent this fraud, but something was wanted to prevent the fraud being perpetrated.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 24, line 17, at the end, to insert the words 'nor to any estate as to which an absolute order for sale was made in the Land Judge's Court prior to the 1st of January 1901, where such order after the passing of this Act has been discharged. "Estate" for the purpose of this sub-Section shall include any portion of an estate.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had listened with attention and interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member. This
  1076
  Amendment had only appeared on the Paper this morning, and, owing to the early hour at which the House met, he had not been able to give to it the full consideration which he thought it demanded. He would only make two observations. There would not be many of the cases which the hon. and learned Member contemplated. He could in it suppose that the Judge would permit what was indicated.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Judge would allow it.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. and learned Member had put forward the argument that the intention of the Bill might be defeated by certain financial operations. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would be satisfied if he said that he would consider the point raised by him. He was quite sure that if the danger referred to existed it ought to be stopped.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to do more at present than promise to consider the point, seeing that only a brief period had elapsed since the Amendment was put on the Paper.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. DUKEmoved an Amendment of Clause 50 for the purpose of enlarging the powers of trustees as to the investment of purchase money. He said the object of the Amendment was to relax something of the stringency under the provisions in the Bill upon the investment of the very vast sums of money which were going to be invested under the operation of this Act. The subject was so large and so closely bound up with the economic well being of Ireland that it was difficult even to attempt to open it on a day when time pressed so much, and when matters much more closely connected with the main objects of the Bill had to be dealt with. But he wished to point out two facts. His right hon. friend would withdraw from the investment market in Ireland practically the whole of the land of Ireland. It would not be available to investors in the ordinary sense.

  1077
  Further, there would be brought into Ireland from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom some hundred millions of money which ultimately would be repaid to the Exchequer. Those were two facts which could not fail to force any observer to the conclusion that the economic future of Ireland was very much bound tip with the manner in which the provision for the investment of the money received for the sale of land was dealt with by this Bill or some future measure. He did not profess to believe that the little list of investments suggested by him would deal fully with the matter, or make a final settlement. What had been felt in regard to the question of the investments of people who were to be the resident gentry in Ireland was, that the Bill as it stood put these investments under the direction of a judicial body, or a indicial person, whose views respecting investments were so strict as to be entirely separated from the views of ordinary commercial persons. That was regarded by those interested in the matter as something of an alarming prospect. He should be glad if the Chief Secretary could tell the House that this subject would receive consideration, with the view of ascertaining whether it was not necessary, having regard to the wholesale change in the conditions of the life of persons holding capital in Ireland, to reconsider the restrictions which the Bill placed on trust investments. These restrictions were proper enough in a country like England, where, fortunately, trust investments were more plentiful than in Ireland, but in Ireland they were felt, as he was told, to operate with undue stringency. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 24, line 37, after the word 'in,' to insert die words, '(a) bonds, debentures, or mortgages seemed upon rates or taxes levied under the authority of any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order by any municipal corporation or other local authority in the United Kingdom which shall be authorised to borrow on such security; (b) ground rents arising out of hereditaments in the United Kingdom and not exceeding in amount one-fourth part of the annual value at a rack rent of the premises out of which such ground rents issue; (c) debentures or mortgages of railway companies in the United Kingdom incorporated by Act of Parliament; (d) stocks or shares of any tramway or light railway interest upon which is guaranteed from or charged upon rates under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts; (e) bonds, debentures, or mortgages secured upon any investments in which trustees are authorised by
  1078
  this or any other Act to invest trust funds; (f) debentures or fully paid shares or stocks of any railway of commercial or industrial company in the United Kingdom, provided that the sufficiency of such inve-tment to realise the sum invested therein upon the death of the tenant for life or the termination of the trust shall be secured to the satisfaction of the public trustee under this Act; or (g).'"—(Mr. Duke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid his hon. and learned friend was really proposing to do what the Government sought to do in another way. In one sense the clause as it stood was wider titan the Amendment. He had gone into this matter very closely, and had conferred with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, taking into account the general law of trusts. Clause 51 represented the clear judgment of the Government on this question, and he did not think that it excluded the investments which his hon. and learned friend would like to see included. He could not hold out any hope that that decision would be amplified on the present occasion. Many of the investments indicated by his hon. and learned friend would be taken in under the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 20, line 28, to leave out the words 'March last before the passing of this Act' and insert the words 'January in the year nineteen hundred and one.
  "In page 27, line 1, after the word 'holding, to insert the words 'or part thereof.'"—[Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  (For Amendments moved by Mr. Wyndham on Clause 52 see Votes.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 9, at end, to add the words '(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any estate as to which a request by the Land Judge issued to the Land Commission under said Section 40 prior to the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would accept this.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 39, after the word 'sum,' to insert the words or sums.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 39, after the word 'exceeding,' to insert the words 'in the aggregate.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 39, after the word 'the,' to insert the words 'amount of the.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 40, after the word 'annuity,' to insert the word 'payable.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 40, after the word 'part,' to insert the words 'upon the making of the advance.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 41, to leave out the word 'for,' and insert the words 'by which the holding is charged with.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 27, line 42, at end, to insert the words 'where part of a holding is mortgaged or charged the Land Commission shall, for the purpose of this enactment, estimate the amount of the purchase annuity payable in respect of that part.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 28, line 1, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'other than a charge under any Public Works Acts.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 28, line 12, after the word 'any' to insert the words 'and any charge under any Public Works Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 28, line 36, to leave out the word 'fails,' and insert the words 'wilfully neglects.'"—(Mr. T. M. Mealy.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 28, line 37, to leave out the word 'ten,' and insert the word 'two.'"—Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 28, line 40, at end, to add the words 'and such rules shall provide a scale of remuneration to be paid by the Land Commission to officers furnishing information under Sub-sections two and three of this section.'"—(Mr. T. M. Heady.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 28, after the word 'tenant,' to insert the words 'provided that no arrears shall be recoverable where the tenant has paid a sum equivalent to a year's rent within the year immediately preceding such offer.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the purpose of this Amendment was to provide against the tenant being really responsible for two years rent, the last year's rent and the "hanging-gate" rent.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment or go farther than he had already gone.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 29, line 39, at end, to add the words 'Every such reference for reconsideration shall contain the reasons thereof, and a copy of such reasons shall be forwarded to the Treasury, and shall forthwith be published in the Dublin Gazette. The Land Commission shall include in their annual report to Parliament an explanation of any variation made by them in a report on such reconsideration.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill proposed an alternative plan, and he hoped

  1081
  the hon. and learned Member would not press this.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 30, line 10, at end, to add the words '(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a request has been issued by the Land Judge to the Land Commission, an order dismissing the petition for sale shall not be made until the offer in that section mentioned has been made and refused.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would consider this subject before the Bill went to another place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 31, line 35, at end, to insert the words '(3) This section shall not apply to any reversion or estate expectant on the determination of an estate tail or a base fee which is vested in the Crown.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 32, line 15, after the word 'determined,' to insert the words 'after hearing the parties.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would consider the point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 32, line 15, to leave out the words 'Land Commission,' and insert the words "Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 33, line 9, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words 'Provided that, in any case where no part of such guarantee deposit has been actually applied, in pursuance of the Land Purchase Acts, for five years, after the date that the holding in respect of which the same was retained was vested in the purchaser thereof, the Land Commission shall, on application, pay the same to the person entitled thereto.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he had investigated this question and had conferred with the Treasury on the matter, and he was not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 33, line 32, to leave out from beginning to the word 'all,' in line 33."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 33, line 37, to leave out the first words 'Act of,' and insert the words 'Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 33, line 37, to leave out the word 'Land.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the sum and substance of the Solicitor-General's defence of the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald was that he was in good physical condition. He strongly opposed the appointment of that gentleman who was to sit as a Judicial Commissioner with a single assessor, and that assessor appointed by himself, to hear appeals on fair rents. This was a most serious business and he proposed to divide upon it.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 37, line 15, to leave out Subsection 3."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed—'That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR T. M. HEALYsaid it was very unfair that the right hon. Gentleman should claim a single-handed Division at that hour in the afternoon.
  MR. WINDHAMsaid that it was impossible on the Report stage to alter

  1083
  the composition of the Commission. He fully defended the constitution of the Court in Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he thought this Amendment he now proposed was reasonable and that the Government ought to accept it. They should not for such work bring in raw hands.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 37, line 35, at end, to add the words 'having not less than live years' experience under the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment, which he could not possibly accept.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he moved his Amendment in order to elicit some information as to what the position would be. In Committee they were told that the Assessors were to be Court valuers but the Court valuers were now appointed by Mr. Fitzgerald who sent them all over Ireland. They had better let Mr. Fitzgerald do the work alone. Personally he had not a bit of confidence in the way this work had been done in the past by Mr. Fitzgerald, and he knew that fair-rent valuers had been removed to the remotest parts of Ireland simply because they did not come up to the landlords' or the land agents' idea of what a fair rent was. If Mr. Fitzgerald was going to have the appointment of his assessor they had better leave out the assessor altogether. He wanted the assessor to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, in which event the assessor would be an independent man and would not be swayed by Mr. Fitzgerald or anybody else as to his views of a fair rent.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 38, line 5, after the word 'assessor,' to insert the words 'who shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant after consultation with the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. DILLONsaid that this was an exceptionally difficult portion of the Bill, and he had intended to relieve his soul upon it on Report. But after all what could they do at that hour of the afternoon? He recognised that nothing that they could do or say would get rid of Mr. Fitzgerald and his assessors. For good or evil they were now embodied in the Bill.
  MR. T. M. MEALYsaid that the understanding with the Government had both its conveniences and its inconveniences. This was one of the inconveniences.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that there was no understanding at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if there was not an understanding to get the Bill through at half-past five o'clock?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he wished to get the Report stage finished that day. In reply to the hon. Member for South Tyrone he pointed out that the hon. Member had overlooked Clause 86, which was part of the frame-work of the Bill. He could not possibly accept the Amendment.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that surely these assessors might be appointed by the Government themselves and not be left to Mr. Fitzgerald.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that so far as he knew there had been no agreement between the Government and these Benches, but there was a desire on

  1085
  the part of himself and his colleagues that the Report stage should be finished that evening.
  Question put and negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 39, line 2,3, to leave out the word 'wages,' and insert the words 'average wages in the year.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'wages' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. O'SHEEmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert after the word "year" the words "preceding the lodgment of the representation."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
  "After the word 'year' to insert the words 'preceding the lodgment of the representation."'—(Mr. O'Shee.)
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 40, line 15, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words '1883 to 1896.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 40, line 19, after the ward 'in' to insert the words 'the said Act as amended by.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 40, to leave out Clause 94."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 40, line 39, after the word 'includes,' to insert, the words 'Pan Three of the Act of 1896.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 41, line 2, at end, to insert the words 'The expression "the Land Law Acts," means the Land Law Acts as defined by the Act of 1896 and part one of that Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 41, line 12, at end, to insert the words. 'The expression "land agent" means and includes receivers under the Courts or receivers under deed.'"—(Sir John Rolleston.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, to leave out Schedule 1."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, line 26, after the word 'three,' to insert the words 'Sub-sections three, four, five, and six of Section thirty-six.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, line 28, at end, to insert the words '54 and 55 Vic. c. 71, The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1891, Section three.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, line 30, after the word 'five,' to insert the words 'save as regards agreements for purchase made before the passing of this Art.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 43, line 32, after the word 'three,' to insert the words 'save as regards agreements for purchase made before the passing of this Act,'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Instead of moving the last Amendment, which stands in my name, I beg to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the genius, skill, and courage which he has shown in the conduct of this Bill.
  MR. BUTCHERasked whether the Chief Secretary would have the Bill as amended reprinted before the Third Reading was taken.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, certainly.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.

  METROPOLITAN STREETS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CALDWELLsaid there seemed to have been some misunderstanding with regard to the Bill. They were under the impression that what was intended to be dealt with under the Bill was the collection of money in the streets for charitable purposes. Some powers should be obtained whereby such collection should be prevented, as it was practically the same thing as begging.
  1088
  As he had pointed out on a previous occasion, this Bill was of a very limited character, but as he read it the measure was intended to go further. It did not deal with the point of street collections, but only with the question of regulating the traffic of horses, carts and carriages. They had expected that the Government would have availed themselves of other powers, as they might have done under the Act in Section 19, which related to the licensing of shoeblacks, and the exercise of similar callings. His object in intervening was not to find fault, but to point out that the Bill did not go far enough, and that they might have introduced a licensing clause such as no person was to publicly collect in the streets without getting an authority for the purpose. They should not allow any persons to go begging in the streets under the guise of a charitable purpose unless some one with authority coat rolled and looked after them. He was anxious that the Bill should go a little further, but if the Home Secretary could not see his way to act upon their suggestion, they would accept it as it was.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)fully recognised the friendly attitude of the hon. Member towards the Bill, which had been introduced in consequence of remarks which had fallen from hon. Members on the other side of the House. At this time of the session it was only possible in meeting their demand to introduce a measure of small and uncontroversial character. This Bill met the demand, and it was thought that it would deal with the difficulty in a satisfactory manner. If it was found that there

  1089
  were not sufficient powers in it to deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member, and that they were serious, he would have to introduce a further Bill at a later date.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL. (LORDS.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Leading read.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he thought this was a very large order. It would repeal a number of Scottish Acts of Parliament which had gone into desuetude. Of course a Bill of this magnitude would have to be very carefully considered, and no doubt there had been an enormous amount of labour bestowed upon it in its preparation. Labour of that kind must not be lost, but there was a great danger that in the course of repealing such an enormous number of statutes they would be repealing something which would have very serious consequences. This Bill had only been newly brought forward, and it was obvious that it could not yet have been carefully considered, and therefore, while there was practically nothing in the Second Leading, he thought on the Committee stage there might be a few Amendments. If the Lord Advocate looked to the bottom of page 3 he would find the words "strangers that sell merchandise in the realm and take nothing therefrom." Having regard to the present question of fiscal relations, perhaps that particular Scotch Act of Parliament might become useful. That was an Act passed in the year 1424,
  1090
  and they would therefore see that the English people were now coming forward to the stage at which the Scottish people arrived in 1421. He wanted the Lord Advocate to notice that while they agreed that the Bill must be read a second time they would think it necessary to go into it minutely on the Committee stage, and he trusted that an opportunity of so doing would then be afforded.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he could not agree with the hon. Member's somewhat unparliamentary expression that this Bill was a big order. This Bill had not been at all hastily prepared. It had taken some three years time of very experienced persons, and it had been for some time before the country. Of course he recognised that it was a Bill that would take up some of the time of the House, and that without the consent of the House it could not possibly be passed, but he did not think he was going too far in saying that the hon. Member would not try to stop the Bill at a future stage unless he saw something wrong in it. If the hon. Member would promise to go through it during the long vacation, he might possibly do so with advantage, but the hon. Member doubtless had his own methods of enjoying his holidays, and it was improbable that they consisted of studying old Acts of Parliament. Therefore there was no ground for thinking that the Bill would be any better next year. More than ordinary precautions had been taken to sweep away nothing that could be of any service and there was the usual saving clause inserted. He hoped the hon. Member would not oppose the Second Reading.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYappealed to the hon. Member to allow the Bill to go through the Second Reading, especially as, although he had listened to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, he failed to find that he had brought forward any valid or sufficient reason for objecting.
  MR. CALDWELL: I did not object.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the speech of the hon. Gentleman seemed to have been made with a view of emphasising the fact that Scotland was a very superior country to England. He understood the hon. Gentleman to found his argument on the fact that England was only now in the position occupied by Scotland in 1424, therefore that Scotland was 680 years in advance of England, and he gathered that it was desirable in the view of the hon. Member that the Bill should be passed in order to enable England to reach the same degree of efficiency as that already obtained by Scotland. As his hon. friend did not object to the Bill he hoped that the House would consent to take the Second Reading.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. GALLOWAYmoved an Amendment, the effect of which he said was to extend the Bill to Ireland. It would be in the recollection of the House that when the measure was last under discussion the House decided that it could not extend to Scotland. In a Bill of this year Scotland had been dealt with, but they had no knowledge that the Government proposed to deal with the question in Ireland, and therefore there
  1092
  appeared to be a good reason why this Bill should be extended to Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No, no.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid the Bill in its present form was very different to that first printed. Since it was last under consideration they had put in a clause which enabled an appeal to be lodged at Quarter Sessions against a decision of the First Court. Whatever objections there might be to extending the Bill to Ireland without those appeals could not now be held.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that there were no inns in Ireland.
  MR. GALLOWAYthought the definition of an innkeeper must be sought in the Act of Parliament. The Act of 1863 clearly defined that an inn should be a public house, and consequently an innkeeper would be the person keeping it. There could be no doubt that according to the Act of 1863 although in Ireland they had no licence in the same way as they had in England, they had innkeepers in that country, and this Bill would be practically as applicable in Ireland as it was in England.
  Further Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred until Wednesday next.
  In moving the adjournment of the House—
  MR. ANSTRUTHERasked to be allowed to state for the convenience of hon. Members that the Chief Secretary had put down the Irish Votes for the business on Monday.
  Adjourned at twenty - eight minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
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. Croydon and District Electric Tramways; Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill; A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
Broadstairs Gas Bill; Hyde Corporation Bill; Leigh Corporation Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill; Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of
974
Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No, 11 (1903).
  Accession of Denmark to the International Convention of 9th September 1886, establishing an International Union for the protection of literary and artistic works, and also to the additional Act and Declaration, signed at Paris, 4th May 1896. (1st July, 1903).
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)
  Sixty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, for the year 1902.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 389. Sierra Leone; Report for 1902.
  TRINIDAD.
  Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the recent disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad. Papers relating to the recent disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad; Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of Glasgow, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (POST OFFICE).
  Fourth Schedule, containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the Office of His Majesty's Postmaster-General which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived. Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  THE ACCESSION OATH.
  *LORD BRAYE, who had given notice "To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to propose any further legislation in reference to the Accession Oath imposed on the Sovereign by the Statute of William and Mary, commonly called the Royal Declaration" said: My Lords, since placing this Question on the Paper I have learnt that it is the intention of certain members of your Lordships' House to re-open the question of the Accession Oath early next session, and to propose legislation in reference to it. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Question standing in my name for the present, and to express the hope that when the time comes the Government may deal favourably with and adopt any satisfactory measure that may be propounded in the direction of a remedy.

  THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF MALTA.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, who had given notice "To call attention to the
  976
  Papers relating to the Political Condition of Malta recently laid before the House," said: My Lords, as I understand it would be very convenient to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Scotland, to proceed as rapidly as possible with the Motor-Cars Bill, and as I believe it would be in accordance with the wishes of the House that I should not interpose between your Lordships and the Committee on that Bill, I will not proceed with my Question at the present time.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): I should like to express my thanks to the noble Marquess for the course he has taken. I nearly asked him to postpone his Question but I did not like to do so in case it might place him in any difficulty; but with the courtesy which is usual between us, the noble Marquess has taken this course entirely on his own initiative.

  MOTOR-CARS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [THE EARL OF MORLEY in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to insert words to provide that the driver of a motor-car, when driving through towns, villages, or populous places, turning corners, or passing branch roads, exceeded the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, or when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, did not slow down, and, if requested, stop, so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing such vehicle, he should be guilty of an offence. He said it appeared to him that there were two great principles which should be kept in view in legislating on this question. The first was not to place any restriction upon motor traffic except that which was absolutely necessary for the public safety, and the second was to secure a ready means of identification of those who broke the law. As regarded the present law, to fix twelve miles as the maximum speed for a machine which had been proved in Ireland to be capable of going at the rate of ninety-five miles an hour was an absurdity, and it seemed to him equally absurd that the

  977
  same speed which was applied to roads in the country should also be applied to the streets of Piccadilly and St. James's. He contended that twelve miles an hour in a town was far too excessive. He did not believe that there was any horse-drawn vehicle in London which travelled more than ten miles an hour, even if as much as that. What had been the result of fixing a special speed? Why, the law had been broken in a shameful way. Men went about in goggles and in a ghastly sort of headgear too horrible to look at, and it was clear that when they put on that dress they meant to break the law. If they were not going to break the law but to confine themselves to a speed of twelve miles an hour, why should not they dress like any ordinary person? It was quite clear that they intended to break the law, and he grieved to say that within the last ten days he had seen two members of His Majesty's Government thus strangely attired. He knew nothing to compare to this lawlessness except, perhaps, the passive resistance of the Nonconformists. They, however, before they passively resisted, held prayer-meetings and prayed for strength to be able to resist the law. He did not believe that motorists who broke the law had prayer - meetings before they did so, or offered up any silent prayer They trusted to their speed, and carried no distinctive mark, so that they could knock down people in the highway and inhumanly pass them by at a high rate of speed. Lord Camperdown had referred the other day to the case of a young lady at Cheam, whose horse was frightened by a motorcar and who was thrown into a ditch, where she was found severely injured. The motorist, however, drove off. He thought the Home Office ought to offer a large reward which would bring that person to justice.
  Notwithstanding their experience of the twelve miles limit, some people were desirous of fixing a limit of twenty miles or more. What would be the result? They would simply be altering the speed, but the illegality would go on just the same. Motorists capable of going thirty miles an hour would not be content with twenty, and the public would be in the same difficulty as before. That was why he had
  978
  endeavoured to put on the Paper an Amendment which, although it did not fix any positive rate of speed, would protect the public if it were inserted in the Bill. The first part of his Amendment was practically the same as the Resolution which he read to their Lordships when two months ago he put a Question to his noble friend as to whether the Government were or were not going to legislate on this question. It came to their Lordships backed by the unanimous support of one of the County Councils of the country. His Amendment covered the whole of the points with regard to which there should be caution, and if their Lordships adopted it the clause would read—
  "If any driver of a motor-car when driving through towns, villages, or populous places, turning corners, or passing branch roads, shall exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, or, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, shall not slow down, and, if requested, stop so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing such vehicle; and if any person drives a motor-car on a public highway recklessly, or at a speed which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition, and the use of the highway, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time, or which might be expected to be, on the highway, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
  The County Councils Association of Scotland had sent a Memorial to his noble friend on this subject, in which they pointed out that in that country there were very many roads which were exceedingly narrow and steep. He thought his Amendment would meet the requirements of that Association At any rate, this was a much better way of dealing with the question than by fixing any special rate of speed. He felt strongly that the question with which Clause 1 dealt should not be left to the local authorities, and that there should be one law with regard to the safety of the public and reckless driving.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, after 'any' to insert the words 'driver of a motor-car when driving through towns, villages, or populous places, turning corners, or passing branch roads, shall exceed the ordinary speed in like circumstances of horse conveyances, or, when passing or meeting any horse-drawn vehicle, shall not slow down, and, if requested, stop so as not to frighten the horse or horses drawing such vehicle: and if any')."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, and I will endeavour very briefly to state the reasons. The noble Earl has covered a somewhat wide field in moving it, and I shall not follow him on to all the points which he has raised. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I see a good many Amendments on the Paper of a practical nature, and on a great many of the points raised I hope to be able to meet the wishes of noble Lords who have put down Amendments. Although I have to ask your Lordships not to accept the first Amendment to which I am speaking, I hope the House will not assume that I am in the slightest degree going to take up a non possumus attitude with regard to many of the proposals on the Paper. But this proposal would not do on several grounds. In the first place, the general idea of the clause is to put in the forefront of its provisions the prohibition against reckless driving of all kinds, and to make reckless driving under all circumstances, whatever those circumstances are, the offence for which the punishment is to be meted out. The noble Earl proposes to alter the phraseology. I put it to the House that the first part of his Amendment is absolutely covered by the general provision against rash and reckless driving, and the second part of it proceeds on very dangerous lines, because it specifies certain instances of reckless driving, and when you specify instances without making sure that you specify the whole, you spoil the effect of the generality of the prohibition in the earlier part of the clause. The latter part of the Amendment with regard to the question of frightening horses is clearly a matter to be dealt with by regulation and not by statute. It is already provided for in the existing regulations, and if those regulations are not strong enough, I am quite prepared to listen to a proposal to make them stronger. But these regulations have the force of a statute, and do not run counter to the idea of the noble Earl that there ought to be general legislation and not legislation at the instance of the local authorities. So far as the precise wording of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl
  980
  is concerned, I hope the House will not accept it.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD HENEAGE, who had given notice to move the insertion, after the words "If any person drives," of the words "or being the owner, permits to be driven," said he desired to make a slight alteration in his Amendment. He had been informed that the word "permits" would cover the fact that the owner was obliged to be present; but since placing the Amendment on the Paper he had taken other advice, and was informed that the word "present" ought to be put into the Amendment. He therefore wished to alter his Amendment so that it would read "or, being the owner, is present and permits to be driven." This was an Amendment which was desired by those who wished to strengthen the Bill, and it had the entire approval of motorists generally. Seeing that those who were not motorists, and that those motorists who desired that reckless driving should be put a stop to were agreed with regard to the Amendment, he ventured to hope that His Majesty's Government would accept it. He was quite certain that until the owner was made responsible it would be quite impossible to stop reckless driving. What owners and drivers of motor-cars had got to be made to understand was that motor-cars, however useful they might be, could not monopolise the roads and terrorise over those who used the roads, and that could only be accomplished by including the owner within the clause. They could not expect the paid drivers to show that courtesy and consideration which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had properly said the other night was wanting on the part of many motorists, if the owners of the motor-cars did not themselves give the drivers an example; and it was not unfair to assume that when an accident happened and the driver drove away, he had the consent of the owner, if the owner was in the car, even if he was not acting under his direct authority. It was a cowardly thing to do, and yet they saw in the newspapers day after day that people who were knocked down and injured were being, left lying in the road by motorists, and

  981
  he was sorry to say that in most cases the owners of the cars were in them. He had been asked to make the clause applicable to owners in all cases, but he did not think that would be fair. He had also been asked to include the hirer: but there again he did not think such a provision would be fair. But he failed to see why the owner should not be made responsible when he was present on the car. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said the other night that there was a provision in the Summary Jurisdiction Act on which he relied. Under Section 5 of that Act the provision, which made the owner an accessory, read as follows—
  "Every person who shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any offence which is or hereafter shall be punishable on summary conviction, shall be liable to be proceeded against and convicted for the same."
  It might be difficult sometimes to prove that against the owner of a motor-car. He did not want to bring in the owner as an accessory, but to make him primarily responsible for the act of his servant if he was on the car at the time of the accident. He thought the proposal a self-evident one. It had the support of Mr. Scott Montagu and other motorists, and he ventured to hope that it would be accepted by the Government.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'drives' to insert the words 'or, being the owner, is present and pennies to be driven.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord went very thoroughly and fairly into what I indicated the other day would be my answer to his Amendment. But he did not altogether appreciate the point I wished to drive home. The kernel of the Amendment is to make sure of the responsibility of the owner. If the House is satisfied that under the existing law the owner, being present, can be made responsible for the acts of the driver, the case for this Amendment will fall to the ground. The noble Lord correctly referred to Section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which provides that
  "Every person who shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any offence which is
  982
  or hereafter shall be punishable on summary conviction, shall be liable to be proceeded against and convicted for the same."
  The noble Lord used the word "accessory." I am informed—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that there is no such thing as an accessory in a misdemeanour. Everyone who assists in aiding a crime is a principal. I am advised that if the owner is present—and you do not wish him to be punished if he is not present—when the car is driven recklessly, he will be held to have aided and abetted the commission of the offence. I am assured that the point is not one of doubt but of absolute certainty. In those circumstances, it being unnecessary, I think it would be unwise to accept the Amendment.
  EARL SPENCERthought it would be better to make the matter perfectly clear by inserting the words proposed in the Amendment. There might be some doubt about the point, and it would have to be proved that the owner aided, abetted, counselled, and procured the act that was illegal. Surely the words proposed by Lord Heneage were very much simpler. The noble Lord merely moved to insert words providing that if the owner was present therefore he became legally responsible. If the noble Lord pressed his Amendment, he should feel disposed to support it.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNinquired the meaning of the word "owner" under the Bill. Would a man who hired a motor-car be, pro tem., considered the owner?
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid it should be made perfectly clear that not only the owner but whoever was being driven in the car should be responsible if he gave orders for the car to be driven beyond the proper speed. It often happened that an owner lent his car to a friend, who instructed the driver to go at a high rate of speed. He had been told that people driving from London to Newmarket, a distance of sixty or seventy miles, had stated that they wanted to be there in two or three

  983
  hours. He hoped it would be made clear that not only the owner but also the person who controlled the driver would be responsible.
  LORD BURGHCLEREthought that the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act were rather wider than the Amendment. If he correctly understood the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, not only the owner of the car but any other person sitting on the car who might instruct the driver to go faster would come under that Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (THE EARL OF HALSBURY): I do not think, with all respect to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, that the proposition laid down by my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland can be doubted by any lawyer. It is one of the cardinal principles of the criminal law that there is no such thing as an accessory. Anybody, whether the owner or not, who aids and incites the driver to go at an excessive speed, will be responsible. I think it would be an undesirable thing to cut down and qualify the responsibility which the law casts upon all persons who, having the power of either persuasion, inducement, or command, encourage others to commit an offence, and who are made principals in the first degree.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he apprehended, from the speeches that had been made, that there was no
  difference of opinion with regard to the matters of fact. Every one wished, apparently, to make the owner liable. The "owner" was mentioned in the Act of 1865, and surely it was very much better that he should be mentioned in this Act. If there was any objection at all, it was that they would be thereby making the Bill less stringent; but they were all anxious that the owner should be liable. If his noble friend proceeded to a division he would support him.
  THE EARL OF CREWEdrew attention to a later Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, to move to insert after Clause 9 the words—
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect any liability of the driver or owner of a motor-car by virtue of any statute or at common law."
  In that case the noble Lord used the word "owner."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My objection is not to the use of the word "owner," but I am afraid that by putting in that word you will afford a loophole of escape for the man who is on the car but who is not the owner.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid that while he regarded the Amendment as an excellent one, the position taken up by Lord Balfour was much stronger as giving better protection to the public.
  On Question, their Lordships divided: Contents 17; Not-Contents 95.

  CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Spencer, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Heneage, L. [Teller.]

  Thring, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Herries, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Kelvin, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

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

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

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

  Coventry, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Craven, E.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Dartrey, E.

  Portland, D.

  Abingdon, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Ancaster, E.

  Derby, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Cairns, E.

  Bath, M.

  Carnwath, E.

  Eldon, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Belper, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Braye, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Burton, L.

  Norton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Reay, L.

  Powis, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Robertson, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Clonbrock, L.

  Savile, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Yarborough, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Dnuboyne, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Cross, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Goschen, V.

  Foley, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Grenfell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Portman, V.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Lindley, L.

  THE EARL OF JERSEY, who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after the words, "If any person drives," the words, "or causes to be driven," said that in view of the division which had just been taken, which had not been encouraging, and the statement of the Lord Chancellor that everyone in a car the driver of which exceeded the proper limit would be held liable to fine and imprisonment, he did not think it worth while moving his Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I must protest against that version of what I said.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNasked the Lord Chancellor if he would answer the Question which he had put to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—namely, what was the real meaning of the word "owner?"
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it that the ordinary meaning of the word "owner" is that which is put in the Act of Parliament and interpreted by it; but that does not decide the question as to who is responsible. Anybody who aids, abets, and assists in any way by his presence and knowledge of what is being done would be a principal misdemeanant. That is why I think all words limiting their responsibility would be calculated to interfere with the efficiency of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHmoved an Amendment to make the Bill apply not only on a public highway, but also "on any roadway to which the public have, or are granted, access." He explained that his Amendment was drafted for the purpose of preventing a motorist escaping; responsibility for an offence owing to a technicality. There were a number of roads in the country which, while they were of a public nature, did not actually come under the definition of a public highway, and it was certainly very desirable that they should be included in the Bill. There was another class of roads which he desired to include—namely, those roads to which the public were granted access by their owners. He might be told that there was the remedy of closing the roads, but he urged on their Lordships that it would only be fair to give the landowners in those cases the opportunity of taking advantage of the law of the land, and so avoiding what must always be to them, an unpleasant necessity.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'highway' to insert the words 'or on any roadway to which the pubic have, or are granted, access.'"—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have great sympathy with the object which the noble Marquess has in view, and I think he has hit a point on which the Bill requires some Amendment. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships

  987
  who open private roads to the general use of the public would desire to take the unpleasant course of closing them in order to exclude riotous drivers of motor-cars. I am prepared to accept the Amendment if the words "have or" are omitted, and if the noble Marquess will alter it to read, "or on any roadway to which the public are granted access."
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHexpressed his willingness to accept the suggested alteration.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to insert after "recklessly," "or at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour." Supposing these words for the moment to have been inserted the clause would read in this way—
  "If any person drives a motor-car on a public highway, or on any roadway to which the public are granted access, recklessly, or at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour, or at a speed which is dangerous to the public," etc.
  He thought that would make the moaning of the clause quite clear. His Amendment did not give, as had been erroneously supposed, any permission to motor-car drivers to drive at a speed of twenty miles an hour, irrespective of whether that would be reckless or dangerous; but what it did enact positively was this: that in no circumstances should a motor-car exceed the speed of twenty miles an hour. The Bill, as it stood, altered the law; in fact, it exactly reversed the law. At the present time the law, when taken with the regulations which had been made by the Local Government Board, was that when a car exceeded a speed of twelve miles an hour the driver was liable to be summoned. This Bill, as it now stood, proposed to reverse that, and to leave the limit of speed entirely within the option and at the discretion of the driver, subject only to this, that he did not drive recklessly or at a speed which was dangerous. The question whether he drove recklessly or at a speed which was dangerous was a matter which he presumed would have to be decided by the magistrates before whom the case came. But those magistrates would not have been there, and would have to form their opinion upon the evidence brought
  988
  before them, whatever it might be. He had some hesitation in putting this Amendment on the Paper because the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said, on the Second Reading, that the Government were opposed to any Amendment which fixed a speed limit. He listened very carefully to the arguments which the noble Lord then used, and he had read them since. He had read them with every desire to be convinced, but, after full consideration of the noble Lord's arguments, he could not arrive at the conclusion that there was really anything in them. In the first place, let them consider for a moment what was the logic of the Local Government Board with regard to this matter. They said that under the present law motorists were limited to twelve miles an hour, but that there was considerable difficulty in finding out whether a car was going at twelve miles an hour or at sixteen miles an hour. What was it they now proposed? Why, that motorists were to be allowed to go at any speed they liked, subject to magistrates being able to fine them for driving recklessly or furiously. Therefore, the law was absolutely changed, and the discretion was entirely placed, in the first instance at all events, in the driver.
  What were the arguments to which the noble Lord had called attention against fixing a speed limit? He said that any limit must be in some cases excessive and in others unduly restrictive. The first part did not matter; it was not to the argument. Undoubtedly there would be some cases in which a twenty miles limit would be excessive, but that, of course, was on the other side of the question. But where were the cases in which a speed of twenty miles would be unduly restrictive? In what sense could it be said that a speed of twenty miles was unduly restrictive? Anyone other than a motorist who drove at twenty miles an hour on the high roads would be immediately brought up for furious driving, and why should drivers of motorcars desire to go at these enormous speeds? They were all agreed that the roads in this country were not intended, and were not suited, for these very great speeds; and the only reason he understood

  989
  Lord Balfour to give the other night why these speeds should be permitted at all was, that there were places like Salisbury Plain. But there were not many of them. Suppose a noble Lord or a farmer was driving in a dog-cart over Salisbury Plain and was met by a motor-car going at the rate of forty miles an hour. It might be said that they ought not to object, because the motorist had such control over his car that he could pull it up immediately. But he did not pull it up. Not once in four times had motor-cars which he had met altered their speed on approaching him. Indeed, the drivers argued that it was safer to pass horses going at a tolerably good speed than at a slow speed. That might be so, but when on horseback and being passed by a motor-car, he had very often had a strong feeling that in a very few seconds he would be at the bottom of a ditch. The noble Lord had said that it was only reasonable freedom to place the discretion as to speed in the hands of the driver; to him it appeared an unreasonable licence.
  So much for the arguments against fixing a speed limit. What were the positive arguments in favour of such a limit? First, the narrowness of many of the roads and lanes in the country. Secondly, a speed limit of twenty miles an hour was a great increase on the limit allowed by the present law. He quite admitted that a restriction to twelve miles was unreasonable, but when they had added to that by 66 per cent., and made it up to twenty miles, he submitted that they really were giving to the drivers of motor-cars every power that any reasonable man could desire. In the event of a driver being brought up for reckless driving, it would be perfectly competent to him to plead that while he was going forty miles an hour an accident did occur, no doubt, but that the way he was driving was hot dangerous and not reckless. He might say that the car was perfectly under his control, and that the speed at which he was driving was not, in his opinion, dangerous to the public. He submitted that the roads being what they were, and the traffic of the country what it was, it was neither reasonable nor desirable that a driver should be able to put forward a plea of that sort. To drive a motor-car at anything over twenty
  990
  miles an hour upon narrow roads was unfair to the rest of the traffic. He believed that the public would demand that there should be some speed limit. They all knew that at the present time motor-cars constituted a terror in suburban districts. Instances had occurred since he last addressed their Lordships of drivers causing accidents and making off, thereby getting scot-free. Further, there was the great and serious dust nuisance. Lord Balfour had said the other night that they could not deal with the question of dust. It was true that they could not deal with it directly, but they could indirectly. He contended that if they allowed cars to run at a very great speed they were thereby increasing this particular nuisance, which very greatly deteriorated the value of the houses on the margins of the roads. It was for these reasons that he believed there should De a speed limit, and the speed limit which he proposed appeared to be a reasonable one.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'recklessly,' to insert the words' or at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD HERRIES, who had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, said that if any member of the Government would go to any agricultural meeting or County Council meeting in the country, he would find that there was a very strong feeling in favour of a speed limit. He thought twenty miles an hour fast enough for anyone to travel. They were told that motor-cars were likely to be more numerous. Lord Rosebery had stated, when the Bill was introduced, that before long there would be three times as many motor-cars on the roads, and the danger would then be increased threefold. Was not that a matter for serious consideration? Were the people to be driven off the roads altogether by motorcars? In many parts of the country there were bye-lanes branching on to main roads which were concealed by trees and high hedges, and it was impossible for motorists going at a high rate of speed to see pedestrians or vehicles emerging from these lanes. He believed that fully 90 per cent. of the people in the country were in favour of fixing a speed limit. Why should their Lordships, because many of

  991
  them had motor-cars of their own, interfere with the enjoyment of the roads by their fellow citizens? If people wanted to travel at a greater speed than twenty miles an hour, they should go by train. Electric trams would not be allowed to travel along the highways at anything like forty miles an hour, and why should motor-cars, which were quite as dangerous? He hoped His Majesty's Government would agree to fix the speed limit at twenty miles an hour.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that motors were being put under very heavy restrictions indeed under this Bill, and if motorists were put under these protective penalties, at least they might be allowed to choose their pace so long as they did not drive recklessly. With regard to the question of dust, of which grievance Lord Camperdown had more than once complained, there would be just as much dust thrown up by a motor going at the rate of twenty miles an hour as by a motor going fifty miles an hour. He pointed out that under Clause 5 power was given to restrict the speed at dangerous parts by regulations of the Local Government Board. The Bill would be absolutely killed if the speed limit proposed were put in, and he hoped it would not be accepted.
  LORD KELVINsaid the noble Earl who had just spoken had answered the only reasonable objection that could be made against the Amendment by pointing out that Clause 5 provided for the local authority making exceptions to the proposed restriction of twenty miles an hour. It surely could not be contended that a speed of more than twenty miles an hour was safe for the public in the lanes and on the roads of this country. If the Amendment was rejected the House would incur a very grave responsibility. Under Clause 5 the local authority could suggest that in certain places a higher speed might be allowed, and the limit could be enlarged in such places. The motor industry had been mentioned several times in the course of that debate, but the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had clearly pointed out that the object of the Bill was not to promote the motor-making
  992
  industry, though there was no desire to do anything which would be unfair to that industry. He felt convinced that the motor industry would never have justice done to it while motor-cars remained rich men's toys. Whilst he would not mind going across Salisbury Plain at ninety miles an hour, he would not allow himself to be taken more than twenty miles an hour along any ordinary road, straight or bent, narrow or broad. He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment, remembering that Clause 5 enabled regulations to be made extending that speed where it could safely be extended.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to think it might be convenient if, at this stage, but without the slightest desire to cut short the discussion on this point, I were to state the views which, after listening to the arguments put forward, both on a former occasion and to-day, I have come to and am entitled to express on behalf of the Government. We have reached in this Amendment perhaps the most critical point we have to decide. It is certainly the point around which the largest amount of controversy centres, and one upon which it is not difficult to see that there is a very strong feeling in both directions. I am rather sorry that the main line of the discussion has come upon this particular Amendment, because it is not really germane to this clause. But I will not raise any technical objection, as I am anxious that the Committee should decide this question on its merits and with a full knowledge of the real importance which underlies it. The framework of this clause—and this is, in fact, the most important clause in the Bill—is designed for the purpose of getting away from the present position of matters, which the Government think wrong, and a very essential part of which is the fixing of an arbitrary limit of speed; and the object of the clause is to put the onus of reckless driving upon the offender irrespective of any such limit. I am bound to say that I am not moved from the general position which I ventured to take up the other night by any of the arguments which I have heard advanced to-day. I adhere most strongly to the view that in the nature of things it is absolutely impossible to fix any

  993
  general limit of speed which would be suitable in the circumstances of every case.
  LORD KELVIN: The Amendment would not absolutely fix a speed limit because it would be liable to extension under Clause 5.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will come in a moment to Clause 5. The facts of the case as they at present stand are that the Act of Parliament says you shall not go beyond fourteen miles an hour, which has been reduced by the Local Government Board Regulations to twelve miles an hour. Now, obviously, that can only fit a certain class of circumstances, and even the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment, and who has taken the lead against the motor craft to some extent in this House, admits that twelve miles is too narrow a limit and is willing to raise it to twenty. I am of opinion that there are many cases of open and straight roads where, having regard to the fact that motor-cars, as now made, are extraordinarily well under control, twenty miles an hour need not be a reckless or a dangerous speed. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches who spoke last said that nothing would induce him to go at a higher speed. I cannot say whether I have ever been at a speed of twenty miles an hour. If I knew, I do not suppose I should confess it, but the prospect of going twenty miles an hour has no great attractions for me. I do not own a motor car. But if it has, attractions for some people, and if they can do it without reckless or dangerous driving, there is nothing criminal in it. Why should they not, under suitable circumstances, be allowed to indulge their fancy? If we were on Clause 5, which is really the speed limit clause, I should be able to show that in some quarters that clause has been misunderstood. Upon that clause I am prepared, on the part of the Government, to offer substantial concessions. It has been supposed that that clause prohibits the municipal authority from scheduling the whole of their borough and confining the maximum speed of motor-cars within those limits to twelve or fourteen miles an hour. If there is any doubt on
  994
  that point I am prepared to make it perfectly clear. I am ready to make it clear that a County Council, if it has a long stretch of narrow or bent roads, may schedule the whole of those narrow or bent roads.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The whole country?
  LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The whole of its narrow or bent roads, but I am not prepared to allow a County Council out of pure opposition to the craft of motoring to schedule the whole of its area, without regard to the particular circumstances of the case. I venture to hope that the House will reject the Amendment as not necessary in the interests of the public. Every legitimate interest of the public can be met by an extension or Amendment of Clause 5. I venture to put it again to the House that the only really efficient remedy—and I think all experience proves that it is a better remedy than the one we have now got—for reckless driving is to make the offence depend on the circumstances of each case. A man can be fined or imprisoned if he goes at ten miles an hour in a dangerous place, and the safeguard to the public is that the pace of the car should be suited to the locality and the circumstances of the case. I venture to put this point—and I believe it to be a point of very real substance—that any speed limit which you insert in a clause will be considered by the motorist as a minimum instead of a maximum, and will be regarded as a chartered right. At present the only thing which the motor-car driver knows is that he is not allowed to go beyond twelve miles an hour. We want to get away from that, and to give greater freedom in places where greater freedom is legitimate, and to enforce the necessity for care wherever the circumstances require it. From the point of view of the public, a limit of speed has the same tendency to blind their eyes, and also those of the police, to the fact that the offence of reckless driving exists alongside with the speed. I want to make reckless driving the offence. At present I think there is too much tendency on the part of the police to consider that their only duty is to

  995
  stop motor-cars going beyond the legal limit, although the circumstances are such as to render the legal limit much less than is safe. That is undoubtedly irritating to the motorist himself, and not fair to the police. There is an immense volume of police testimony in this direction. I will only give one quotation. A short time ago a letter appeared from Mr. Anson, the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, in The Times, in which he said—
  "In common with most other police officers I am not enamoured of a speed limit in miles per hour. It is most difficult to estimate the absolute pace of any vehicle, and endless confusion will be caused if every urban district is to have a speed limit of its own."
  I believe it to be absolutely impossible for a man looking at a car to say whether it is going eighteen, twenty, or twenty-two miles an hour. It is much easier to prove whether the thing is reckless, dangerous, or improper in the circumstances in which it is done. If you have this artificial restriction it will tend to continue, if not to increase, the hard swearing which takes place in police-courts, and to concentrate the energy of the police on points where the driving of a motor-car at a high speed is perfectly safe, and to take away their attention from points where it is dangerous, and where their assistance is really required. I believe that the effect of putting a limit of speed into an Act of Parliament would be actually to decrease what must ultimately be the really effective machinery for stopping reckless driving, namely, that which ensures a penalty following upon reckless driving in all circumstances. We are, in this Bill, making for the first time an effective system of identification and registration, and you will, if the Bill passes, be able to catch the man who breaks the law in a way in which you have never been able to catch him before. The Bill puts an immense power into the hands of those who want to check what is wrong, and if you run the risk—I do not say you will—of losing the Bill for the sake of an arbitrary speed limit, you will be doing great harm to the interests of this industry. The general lines on which the Bill is cast are wiser, safer, and more in the interests of the general public, than the proposal in the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMexpressed his disappointment with the speech which had just been made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He had always understood the protection of life to be one of the functions of good government. The noble Lord had made no reference whatever to the terrible accidents which were happening daily. They read in the newspapers how His Majesty's subjects were being daily killed and maimed by reckless motor driving, and yet the noble Lord had said nothing about that. Not very long ago, at a meeting of a district council in Yorkshire, a resolution was passed against motor-cars being allowed on the roads at all. They said they were dangerous machines, and that it would be far better not to allow them to use the public roads. He contended that it was undoubtedly reckless driving to exceed twenty miles an hour. Therefore, in the interests of the public, he felt that a speed limit should be imposed. His noble friend Lord Balfour seemed to have taken the motorists under his wing, and to have ignored altogether the interests of the public. If effective steps were not taken to prevent reckless driving, the feeling of the country would eventually demand more stringent measures than those with which it would now be satisfied.
  LORD STANMOREpointed out the danger which arose in regard to crossways, and contrasted the minute and stringent precautions which were taken with regard to a level crossing on a railway with the entire absence of any protection to the public on a level crossing on the roads. In the vicinity of his own house there was a main road which was crossed by another road, the corners of which were completely masked, so that no one driving on either of the roads could see a driver on the other road until he was actually at the crossing point, at which it would be absolutely impossible for a motor-car to draw up or stop. He felt that a case had been made out for some protection of the public by the imposition of a speed limit. He was in favour of the Amendment, and of allowing the County Councils to relax the speed limit in particular cases.
  *THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYregretted that he could not go into the Lobby with his noble friend who had moved this Amendment. He thought that a measure such as this, must be largely governed by the principle of conciliation between the parties concerned—in this instance the public on the one hand, and the motor-car industry on the other. He objected to the Amendment as likely to endanger the passing of the measure, and as affording less safety to the public than the Bill as it stood. He was of opinion that the words "at a speed which is dangerous to the public" covered all the ground. No one felt more hostility than he did towards the class of motorists who caused accidents, and possibly loss of life, and then drove on without taking the slightest trouble to render assistance. Those people, who were now known by the police as "road hogs," would be dealt with under the existing provisions of the Bill, and he hoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment.
  EARL SPENCERopposed the Amendment. He thought the Secretary for Scotland had in a most able and conclusive way proved the case which he desired to put before their Lordships. He believed that the proposal of His Majesty's Government was more likely to protect the public against reckless driving. There was nothing so wrong as to put on the Statute-book an unworkable clause, and he thought the Amendment would be unworkable. People would not be bound by what they considered an unreasonable limit. Take

  CONTENTS.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Knollys, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Heneage, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Herries, L. [Teller.]

  Sherborne, L.

  James, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Cross, V.

  Kelvin, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bath, M.

  Ancaster, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ripon, M.

  Cairns, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Carnwath, E.

  Portland, D.

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

  Chesterfield, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Craven, E.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Crewe, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Abingdon, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  the case of a motor-car travelling along a straight piece of road without a single person in sight, which might extend for a mile or a mile and a half. It was perfectly safe for the car to travel at this point at more than twenty miles an hour, and he believed there would not be any motorist who would not be tempted, when he saw a clear space before him of this character, to go at a greater speed than that laid down by the law. For the reason that he believed it dangerous to pass an unworkable law he could not vote for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid he did not rise to prolong the discussion, or even to speak to the point which had been so ably urged on both sides, but to make a practical suggestion to the Secretary for Scotland. He shared the views expressed by Lord Stanmore as to the great danger of crossways, and he suggested that the word recklessly implied simply a dare-devil rate of speed, and that if the words "or carelessly" were added they would cover the case of cross roads and be of assistance in controlling bad driving. Perhaps the noble Lord would take that point into consideration before the Report Stage.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will certainly take it into consideration, but the noble Earl would not expect me to accept it off-hand.
  THF EARL OF ROSEBERY: No, I only want the point taken into consideration.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Non-Contents, 111.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Lamington, L.

  Derby, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Abinger, L.

  Lindley, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Grey, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Lyveden, S.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M Granby.)

  Harewood, E.

  Belper, L.

  Howe, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Braye, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Oranmore and Browne. L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Burton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Robertson, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Mayo, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Powis, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Saville, L.

  Romney, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Shand, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Selborne, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Spencer, E.

  Foley, L.

  Thring, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Harris, L.

  Welby, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Hatherton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Goschen, V.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Kenyon, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Portman, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  LORD HENEAGEwho had given notice to move to delete from the first sub-section of Clause 1 the words—
  "Including the nature, condition, and use of the highway, and to the amount of traffic which actually is at the time, or which might be expected to be, on the highway,"
  said that looking at the lateness of the hour and the fact that there were several important Amendments to come on later in which he was interested, he would postpone this Amendment until a later stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would state the reason for inserting the words which Lord Heneage had intended to move to omit.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not understand the noble Marquess to allege any positive disadvantage. If he thinks there is any disadvantage in these words remaining in the clause, I shall be glad to hear what they are. I have never heard them objected to before this moment, and I am not prepared to give any very definite answer.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid that as he understood Lord Heneage
  1000
  would move his Amendment at a later stage, he would deal with the point then.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNmoved to omit the words "or which might be expected to be." These words were, he held, extremely vague, and would throw the onus on to the driver of a motor of speculating as to what might be expected to be on the highway. He thought that the clause without these words would be quite sufficient and would avoid the difficulties and undoubted difference of opinion which would arise if the clause was passed in its present form.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'or which might be expected to be.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The words express in clear language what the law has been declared to be by the Judges who tried two recent cases, and they are purposely included in this clause to make it clear to motorists who may not read the Law Reports what the law is that they are expected to obey. The two cases I refer to are Smith v. Boon and Mayhew v. Sutton. They

  1001
  were both cases under the general Highways Acts, and it is for the advantage or every one concerned that the law should be clearly stated.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsaid that after the noble Lord's explanation he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment making it an offence for the driver of a motor-car to keep the engine in motion when the car was stationary, after he had been requested to stop the engine. He said their Lordships would have noticed that very often when a car was drawn up by the side of the pavement, the engine was left in motion, and the car continued to pant and make a great noise which was very disturbing to horses. There had been cases in which the motorists had been requested to stop the engine but had declined to do so. He thought they ought to be compelled to stop after a reasonable time when so requested. He proposed to move the Amendment in a slightly different form from that in which it appeared on the Paper, because it had been represented to him by some motorists that a car might be brought to a stop by a block in the traffic, and that would not be a case in which the driver should be expected to stop the engine. He did not think that such a stoppage would be held by any Court to be stationary, but he had no objection to inserting words to make it clear.
  Amendment, moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'highway,' to insert the words 'or when the car is stationary, owing to causes other than a block in the traffic, continues to keep the engine in motion after he has been requested to stop it.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I agree with the noble Earl that this has proved to be a very great grievance, but I think the matter is better dealt with by regulation than by statute; and if the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, I will give him a pledge that the point will be dealt with by the Local
  1002
  Government Board when issuing their general regulations.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved the insertion of a new sub-section. He said there had been many cases of drivers of motor-cars resisting and obstructing police constables in the execution of their duty. The words in his Amendment were at the present moment part of the regulations issued by the Local Government Board, but by inserting them in this Act the offence would be punishable by more severe penalties.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Sub-section (1) to insert the following new sub-section—'If a driver of a motor-car or any other person resists or obstructs a police constable in the execution of his duty under this section, or if he does not stop the motorcar and keep it stationary as long as may be reasonably necessary when requested by a police constable or any person having charge of a horse, or of sheep or of cattle, or on such constable or person holding up his hand as a signal for that purpose, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'" — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. The first part of it, which deals with the obstruction of police constables in the execution of their duty, is already fully covered in the Prevention of Crimes Act, and therefore there is no sort of reason for putting it in here. The rest of the Amendment is merely a matter for regulation. The regulations now prescribe that the person in charge of a horse is the person to hold up his hand he wants to stop a car, and cases have occurred where, owing to the technicality of the man seated by the side of the driver holding up his hand, it has been held that a request to stop has not been legally made. I am perfectly prepared to have that amended, but it is a matter which would be better done, I venture to suggest, by the flexible method of regulations by the Local Government Board than by statute. I do not think there is so much to be said with regard to horses, sheep, or cattle, because I think the motorist, if he is a wise man,

  1003
  will do all he can to avoid running into sheep or cattle for his own safety. With regard to the matter of giving a signal, I hope the noble Earl will accept the pledge I have given.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that if the Local Government Board proposed to deal with this matter in the new regulations under this Act, of course that would make any violation of the regulations an offence under this Act, which was his object. He therefore withdrew his Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The regulations will be clearly issued under this Act. The present regulations would have been amended before now if it had not been for the prospect of legislation.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNmoved to insert the words "in uniform" after the word "constable" in Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, which provides that—
  "Any police constable may apprehend without warrant the driver of any car who commits an offence under this section within his view."
  He said the insertion of the words "in uniform" would put an end to the constant annoyance experienced by motorists of being held up for the amusement of pedestrians. If the Amendment was accepted there would be less friction between motor-car drivers and the general public.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 12, after the word 'constable,' to insert the words 'in uniform.'"—(Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Under the Highways Act a constable, whether in uniform or not, may arrest a wrongdoer, and it is obvious that if a motorist and a driver of a dogcart are on the high-road together they should both be under the same law in regard to the police. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought a police constable ought to be able to apprehend for an offence even if it were not committed within his view. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'within his view,' and to insert the words 'if such car have no mark of registraion, and if such driver be unknown to him and refuses to give his name and address.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The argument which underlies this is a technical one, but I think I can put it shortly to the Committee. If you omit the words "within his view" from this clause, it will make an alteration in the general law. The section which gives power to the constable to arrest an offender who commits an offence within his view is right for this reason: that if a driver refuses to give the constable his name and address, he is clearly guilty of an offence under this section, and he is committing an offence within the view of the constable. If he does give his name and address, the power to apprehend is not material, because he can be summoned for driving a car which is not registered. If the noble Earl really wants to strengthen the Bill in this matter, the best way to do it would be to insert in the next clause—"And any police constable may apprehend without warrant any such person who commits an offence within his view." But I could not accept an Amendment to allow a constable to arrest an offender without seeing the offence, for the offence is, after all, only a misdemeanour. I believe there is no precedent for such a power except in the case of a felony. I think it will be seen that the Amendment is not necessary for the purpose in hand.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to omit the words "any car who commits" from Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 — which provides that if the driver of any car who commits an offence under this section refuses to give his

  1005
  name and address, or gives a false name and address, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act — and to insert, in lieu thereof, the words "a motor-car charged with." He presumed that the driver could not be said to have committed an offence until it had been proved.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words 'any car who commits,' and to insert the words 'a motor-car charged with.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This section runs practically in the same language as the Highways Act of 1835, and both on the ground of precedent, and on the ground of actual verbal accuracy, I think the Amendment is not required.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Lord if he would explain the wording of the clause, which ran—
  "If the driver of any oar who commits an offence under this section refuses to give his name and address, or gives a false name and address, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act,'" etc.
  What was the object of saying that if the driver of a car committed an offence he should be guilty of an offence?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is the technical way of saying that he commits an offence under the Act which subjects him to the penalty clause.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHmoved to insert at the end of the first subsection—
  "And no car shall be registered for ordinary road work capable of going more than thirty miles an hour on the flat."
  He was in agreement with the Government that a speed limit was not desirable, because there was no limit of
  1006
  speed in a motor-car which was actually safe. He had driven in motor-cars at over forty miles an hour in France with perfect comfort and perfect safety, and he had driven in motor-cars in England at six miles an hour, where the driver was a terror to himself and everybody else. The arguments he had heard brought against this proposal were these. In the first place, he was told that if they had a limit power of thirty miles an hour on the level, the car would not go up hill as fast as that; on the other hand, he was told that it would go down hill a great deal faster. He did not see why motorists should want to go up hill at the same speed as on the flat. Other vehicles had to go up hill at a modified speed, and if they went down hill faster than the public safety permitted they were dealt with under other provisions. The one argument that did seem to him to have weight was that a motor-car of this power would be unable to draw any weight up any very considerable gradient. But if a motor-car that was capable of going thirty miles on the level could not draw a reasonable weight up a reasonable hill, then the sooner those who made motor-cars turned their attention to making cars that would do this, instead of aiming at a great speed on the flat, the better. His object was to keep racing cars off the roads altogether. Noble Lords had expressed great jubilation that in the Gordon-Bennett race nobody was actually killed. He hoped that was the last race on public roads in this country.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'them' to insert the words 'and no car shall be registered for ordinary road work capable of going more than thirty miles an hour on the flat.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH, who had an Amendment on the Paper with the same object, said that both he and the noble Earl desired by their Amendments to provide that motor - cars fitted with monstrous engines should not be allowed to run along the high roads at all. Surely it was not too much to expect that they could arrive at some standard beyond which it was not desirable that motorcars should be registered for traffic on the ordinary roads. He believed that the only safe way to do that was by

  1007
  regulating the power of the engines with which motor-cars were fitted to the weight of the cars. No doubt it would be said that it was a very hard thing indeed that a man who had a very powerful motor-car should not be allowed to use it on the roads, and that he need not go at the extreme speed that his car would allow him to go. But human nature being what it was, he thought that any noble Lord or any gentleman who possessed a motor-car able to go at a very high rate of speed would be tempted to take advantage, on some occasions at any rate, of that power, and run the car at full speed. It was said that these very high speeds might be indulged in without any very great danger, but he knew that many skilful motorists admitted that when they got to fifty, sixty, or seventy miles an hour they were necessarily incurring considerable danger whether the roads were empty or not. He would put another point. Suppose a motorist was going at fifty miles an hour, and wanted to pass a vehicle, what happened? He would slow down to about thirty miles an hour, which was far too high a speed at which to pass any vehicle; whereas, if he had been going at from thirty to thirty-five miles an hour, he would slowdown to about fifteen miles an hour, which was a speed at which he might properly pass other vehicles on the road. The Amendment which he had drafted for dealing with this question was as follows—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 25, after 'them' to insert 'provided that no motor-car shall be accepted for registration fitted with engines giving more than thirty horse-power, and that every motor-car if fitted with engines of from twenty to thirty horse-power, shall weigh at least twenty-four hundred weight ready for the road; if fitted with engines of from twelve to twenty horse-power, shall weigh at least fifteen hundredweight ready for the road; and if fitted with engines of from six to twelve horsepower, shall weigh at least nine hundredweight ready for the road.'"
  He believed that if his Amendment was accepted motor-cars would be capable of registering a much higher speed than that suggested by Lord Dartmouth. His Amendment would allow a speed of at least forty miles an hour to be attained, so that he did not think the Amendment was at all illiberal to the motorist who was fond of going at a high speed. If the Government were disposed to accept words similar to his own in preference to
  1008
  those of his noble friend, he was quite ready to accept them; but he ventured to press on the noble Lord in charge of the Bill the desirability of accepting the principle that some standard of speed should be fixed beyond which motor-cars should not be registered. The various arguments urged earlier in the debate against any speed limit did not apply with regard either to the Amendment of his noble friend or his own. They got rid of all questions of the police, of stopwatches, and the spying system. What they said was that manufacturers should not make cars giving more than a certain power if those cars were to be registered. He was quite prepared to accept the decision of the House on his noble friend's Amendment as covering his Amendment.
  *LORD KELVINsaid that the Amendment proposed by Lord Dartmouth was, in his opinion, unduly restrictive, because cars so limited would be unfit for work, say, in the Highlands of Scotland, where it was necessary to go uphill. It was inadvisable to restrict cars from possessing the power of going at very high speeds on the flat, as without this power they would be of little use in hilly districts. There should not be a limitation as to the power of motorcars which would prevent an owner taking advantage of any relaxation as to speed which might be allowed under Clause 5 by the local authorities and the Local Government Board in certain parts of the country. He believed that local authorities would give permission in certain places where it was safe for motor-cars to be driven at rates varying from thirty to forty miles an hour, and if the Amendment was adopted motors would not be capable of going even at a speed permitted by the law.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEasked what was to happen to the existing larger cars. Would the owners have to sell at a loss, or was there a means open to them by which they could alter the machinery in some way so as to enable them to be registered?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that it would be quite easy to have the engines altered so as to bring those cars within the requirements of the law.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have the greatest possible sympathy with the idea, and I agree with the noble Lord that if we could carry out this principle, it would be a fair, judicious, and sensible way of regulating the speed of motor-cars. But according to the advice I get from more than one source and not only from my professional advisers, both Amendments are impossible and Utopian. They could not be carried out in practice. The object of both noble Lords is to keep what are practically racing cars off the road. I am informed that racing cars are really of no practical use for general road work No doubt they have had a certain boom, but that boom, if not already passed, is at any rate passing away, and I believe that racing cars on an ordinary road will really die a natural death. In answer to Lord Ribblesdale, I am informed that about 55 per cent. of the cars now in use would be unable under these Amendments to obtain a certificate, and would have to be wholly redesigned; refitting would not do. I do not, however, base my opposition on that ground, but on the ground that, as I am advised, this is an impracticable proposal. I am positively assured that cars which have power to go at thirty miles an hour on the flat would really be unable to go even up to ordinary speed in a hilly country. The difference of power required to climb an ordinary hill and to go on the fiat is so great that there is no regular relation between them. Moreover, any man who desired to evade the law could alter the gearing of the car in a very few moments. There fore the Amendments would afford no protection. Though I am in sympathy with the idea contained in the Amendment, I am assured by those who have special knowledge that it is impossible to put it into practice.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that recently he had been driven in a 40 h. p. Mercedes car from Ascot to Windsor and did the journey of six and a half miles in just over seven minutes. That was a very comfortable car, capable of carrying six or seven persons, but he did not think it was the type of car that should be allowed on the road.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid that if 55 per. cent of the cars now in use would be unable under his Amendment to obtain a certificate, the owners would have to get new ones, which would be an excellent thing for the motor industry.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHintimated that he would not move his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to amend Sub-section 2 of clause 2, which provides that—
  "A mark indicating the registered number of the car and the council with which the car is registered shall be fixed on the car, or on a vehicle drawn by the car, or on both," etc.
  He moved to leave out the words "or on a," and to insert, in their place, "and on any," and to omit "or on both." The effect of his Amendment would be to require that, if a car had a trailer, the mark indicating the registered number of the car and the council with which the car was registered should be placed both on the car and on the trailer. As the clause now stood, it was unnecessary for that to be done.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 28, to leave out the words 'or on a' and to insert the words 'and on any,' and to leave out the words 'or on both.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the power to direct that the mark shall be fixed on one or other or both, is better than the provision that it shall be on both, and for this reason, that a trailer may not always be used with the same engine. I think it would be better to leave the matter to be dealt with in the regulations of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD HERRIESmoved an Amendment in Sub-section 3 to substitute £1 for 5s. as the amount to be charged by the Council of a County or county borough on the registration of a ear. The Bill would impose a great amount of expense on the local authorities, who would have to erect signposts and provide additional constables to see that people

  1011
  did not drive recklessly on the roads. He thought that the fee to be paid should certainly be more than 5s.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'five shillings' and insert the words 'one pound.'"—(Lord Herries.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It was not intended that these fees should be a source of revenue, and I would prefer to leave this matter to be decided in the other House of Parliament, where I understand questions of taxation in connection with the Bill may arise.
  LORD HARRIShad hoped that the Government would have given a sympathetic support to the noble Lord's proposal. At the present time traction engines had to pay as much as £10 for a licence. Of course they broke up the roads very seriously, and he did not think £10 any too much to make them pay; but motor-cars also took a good deal of wear out of the roads, judging by the dust which they threw up, and he hoped that before the Bill became law a much heavier charge than 5s. would be imposed on the registration of a car.
  THE EARL OF MAYOcould not see how a motor-car any more than a cycle could take any wear out of roads.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYsaid that if the noble Earl who had just sat down was acquainted with the amount of money that had had to be spent by County Councils in repairing the damage done to roads by motor-cars he would be convinced to the contrary.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsaid that Sub-section 4 of Clause 2 as at present drafted, provided that if a car is used on a public highway without being registered, or if the mark to be affixed in accordance with the Act is not so fixed, or if, being so fixed, it is in any way obscured, or rendered, or allowed to become not easily distinguishable, the person driving the car shall be guilty of an offence under the Act. He moved to insert, after "distinguishable,"
  1012
  the words "except from dust or mud."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 8, after the word 'distinguishable' to insert the words 'except from dust or mud.'"—(The Earl of Rosslyn.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I could not possibly accept this Amendment, because dust and mud are the very things I want to provide against. The whole kernel of this clause is to lay the responsibility for a clear number and a clear light upon the owner of the car. I have heard that there are some men who oil or grease their lights in order that dust and mud may stick to them. I have never seen it done, but I think such a thing is possible.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he would put in words to exempt the driver where the number was not obscured wilfully.
  LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No; we want distinctly to lay the obligation on the driver of the car to keep his light and number clear. The whole point is to lay the onus on the driver of the car.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides that a person shall not drive a motor-car for hire or reward unless he is licensed for the purpose. I move to omit the words "for hire or reward," the Amendment having the effect of requiring all drivers of motor-cars to have a licence.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'for hire or reward.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  *LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid the object of the Amendment standing in his

  1013
  name was to provide that no licence should be granted to any person under the age of sixteen. He felt that the majority of their Lordships would agree with him that there should be some limit of age. Under the Bill any child, on payment of the fee, could take out a licence to drive a motor-car. He had fixed sixteen as the age, because there were a large number of steady and intelligent lads earning a living in motor workshops, and he would be sorry to do anything which would deprive them of the means of earning their living.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 13, after the word 'reward' to insert the words 'no such licence shall be granted to any person under the age of sixteen.'"—(Lord Ellenborough.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This Amendment is a very reasonable one in itself, but it raises a principle of some importance on which I should like to ask the opinion of noble Lords who have studied the question, in the Bill the proposal is that anybody shall have a licence. If you put any limitations upon that, it restricts the right of a person to get a licence, and I think you might almost have to go further and provide a series of conditions under which County Councils should give licences. I have no objection to this Amendment and am prepared to accept it, but I may have to bring up clauses for carrying this and similar Amendments into effect at a subsequent stage.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment providing that a licence shall be produced when demanded by a police constable. Otherwise, he did not see the value of the licence.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 13, after the word 'reward' to insert the words 'such licence must be produced when demanded by a police constable.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no objection to this Amendment.
  LORD HENEAGEasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he had any
  1014
  objection to altering the word "shall" into "may" in Sub-section 2, which ran—
  "The Council of a County or county borough shall grant a licence to drive a motor-car for hire or reward to any person applying for it on payment of a fee of one shilling, unless the applicant is disqualified under the provisions of this section."
  He thought some discretion should be given to the County Council in order that drunkards and objectionable people might not get licences if they were pointed out by the police. His Amendment would not injure the clause in any way, but would give the County Council a very desirable discretion.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 16, to leave out the word 'shall' and to insert the word 'may.'"—[Lord Heneage.)
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsupported the Amendment and expressed the hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would see his way to accept it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think that this Amendment would cut deeper into the framework of the Bill; than the noble Lord seems to think. If it were carried, a County Council might say that they would not grant a licence. It seems to me that the granting of licences by County Councils requires some consideration by the House. I did not put an Amendment on the Paper because I heard that this question was to be raised. But I had it in view to consider whether there should be a general power for a man to get a licence in any part of the country, whether he was domiciled or not in the county in which he applied. I was rather inclined to make it compulsory on a County Council to grant a licence, except for certain specified reasons, but not to make it obligatory on the County Council to grant a licence to a person not domiciled in their district or known to them. I think that would be a better way of regulating the matter. I hope noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill will give some general indication of what they think is the wisest course to adopt, and if the decision is in the direction of not leaving the Bill exactly as it stands, but of limiting the right of the applicant for a licence to get it from only one County Council, I would be

  1015
  prepared at a subsequent stage to put down a code of clauses which would regulate the matter in that direction rather than in the way suggested.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I suppose a licence from one County Council would hold good all over the country?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Clearly. Bat what I had in view was that, if a man were allowed to apply to more than one County Council for a licence, he might when one licence was endorsed with a conviction, and he was again convicted, produce another licence which he had up his sleeve and which was unendorsed. I think, therefore, the principle adopted should be one man one licence, and consequently one man one place in which to get a licence. But I think it would be impossible to entrust complete discretion to the County Council, which might put undue difficulties in the way of a person domiciled in its district getting a licence.
  LORD HENEAGEwithdrew his Amendment, but expressed the hope that the noble Lord would deal with the question at a subsequent stage.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked whether the licence should not be obtainable only in the county or district in which the car was registered.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no objection to taking that into consideration, but at present it is compulsory on every County Council to give a licence to anybody who applies for it, without making any inquiry whether he has obtained a licence before from any other County Council.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHmoved an Amendment making it a condition of the granting of a licence that the applicant should produce a certificate, signed by the chief of the police of the county or county borough, of his competence
  1016
  to drive a motor-car. This point was debated on the Second Reading, and it certainly did seem to him that the whole weight of argument was in favour of requiring some such proof of competence. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had asked who was to examine. He (Lord Tweedmouth) supplied the answer in his Amendment by putting in the police. The noble Lord might ask what regulations were to be made for the examination; but two or three times that night the noble Lord had stated that the Local Government Board were prepared to frame regulations for this and that purpose. If it was necessary that there should be uniformity between one district and another, then surely regulations could be framed and laid down on which the police might act. Then it was said that a man might get a licence more easily from one authority than from another. After all, that was an objection which was to be found with regard to examinations of every kind. According to the examiner, and according to the place, there would be a certain difference of qualification required for exactly the same purpose; but by this Amendment they would, at any rate, get a certain proof of some competence, and he held that it was far better that the driver should be required to show some competence than that he should be allowed to have a licence whether he could drive or not. Then it was said that they could not really test the competence of a driver unless they put him in some difficult place, and that that could not be secured in the case of an examination. He admitted that the most competent driver, if put in a tight place, might utterly fail to meet it if he had not sufficient nerve. The question of power to deal with the exigencies of a tight place would always depend upon the courage of the individual, and would not be met by any question of skill; but, for his own part, if he had to be in a tight place on a motor-car, he would sooner be in a tight place with a competent driver than with one who knew very little about his business.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 18, after the word 'it' to insert the words 'and who produces a certificate signed by the chief of the police of such county

  1017
  or county borough of his competence to drive a motor-car.'"—Lord Tweedmouth.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsaid the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had asked him, on the Second Reading, to frame an Amendment on this subject. He had done so by providing that any County or Borough Council might withhold or subsequently cancel such licence if, in their opinion, the applicant for, or owner of, such licence should be deemed to have no practical knowledge of the method of driving a car. The only difference between his Amendment and that of his noble friend Lord Tweedmouth was that, in the latter, the police were substituted for the County or Borough Council, and to that he was agreeable. He suggested that the representative of the chief constable or the County or Borough Council should ask the applicant to drive his car round a portion of their town or village which they had had measured, and see that he was not only able to drive at regulation speed, but with care and caution, before granting him a licence.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As your Lordships will remember, this matter was discussed at some length on the Second Reading, and I then indicated my views, with which the noble Lord, quite fairly, professed himself not satisfied, and he has to-day, as I fully expected, returned to the charge. I may say he has not converted me, and I hope he has not converted the majority of the House, because it seems to me, as I said then, that while there is a good deal to be said for it at first sight, it is really impossible satisfactorily to carry out in practice, and, even if carried out, in an emergency would be a delusion and a snare. In the first place, I say without fear of contradiction that in this country there is no Government Department which could do it for the whole of the country.
  I do not understand that to be challenged, and therefore it must go into the hands of the County Councils or of the police. As I stated on a former occasion, neither of these bodies have any technical knowledge or technical advisers, and I ventured to say—and I have since been confirmed in the statement—that the accidents that have happened have not been from want of competency on the part of the driver. But the most serious objection I have is that I believe any examination which would be more than a mere farce, would be impossible to carry out without a great expenditure of money, time, and trouble, utterly disproportionate to its real value. If it is to be an efficient examination it must be continuous for a certain amount of time, and every variety of contingency must be provided for. I believe that anything short of a very thorough examination would be a delusion, and would give a false sense of security. What I believe would really happen would be that whoever examined the applicant would make him drive backwards, then forwards, and then stop, and then go through some very slight exercises. As I said before, competency to drive one particular kind of car does not necessarily mean competency to drive another car, and I think it will hardly be suggested that the licence is only to be one to drive one particular kind of car. I suggest that this is really not a useful and practicable proposal, but I do see that there are some deficiencies in the regulations under which licences are granted, and I will, at any rate for discussion, put down a code of clauses at a subsequent stage, which will, I think, regulate the matter better.
  On question, their Lordships divided:
  Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 59.

  Bath, M.

  Morley, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Morton, E.

  Harris, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Hatherton, L.

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

  Romney, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Heneage, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kelvin, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kenyon, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Portman, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor, E.

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

  Dartrey, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Derby, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Belper, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Howe, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Forester, L.

  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House, but it has been suggested to me that possibly it would be convenient, to adjourn the further consideration of the Bill in Committee until Tuesday next. I am entirely in the hands of the House. I am ready to go on now or to adjourn, but I venture to think that the progress we have made to night would justify an adjournment until Tuesday. Moreover, it would give the Local Government Board a little more time to put down the new clauses which I have promised, and would really facilitate the progress of the measure.
  EARL SPENGER: If, as the noble Lord says, an adjournment will be more conducive to the efficiency of the Bill I shall certainly not oppose it.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Tuesday next.

  VOLUNTEER RANGES.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to give the details of the manner in which the £170,000 allocated for Volunteer ranges in the years 1900–1901 has been distributed.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: (The Earl of HARDWICKE): The Return which I promised by
  1st August is now in the hands of the printers, and I hope to present it to the House in the course of the next few days.

  PISTOLS BILL.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read, and discharged.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this Bill has passed without opposition through the other House, and is to enable land to be acquired in Dublin for the purpose of a Royal College of Science and other offices and buildings for the public service. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.