Sitting of 13 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered; An Amendment made. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Belfast and other parts of Ireland; Birmingham and other places; Chatham and other places; Guildford and other places in Surrey; Lancashire and Cheshire; London and other places; Midland Counties; Scotland; Southsea and other places; and Wales; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petitions for alteration of law: From Aspley Guise; Grimsby; and Upper Tooting; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extention to women: From Guildford; and Poplar; to lie upon the Table.
  RAHILL, OWEN.
  Petition of Owen Rahill, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  Petition from Leeds, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, confirming certain By-Laws made by the Tyne Pilotage Commissioners for the River Tyne in substitution of the By-Laws
  638
  hitherto in force [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, further altering the Scale of Light Dues to be levied under the Act of 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, directing that any Pay, Half-Pay, etc., of Officers of His Majesty's Navy or the Royal Marines may be abated to meet Mess Debts or other similar debts or liabilities [by Act];to lie upon the Table.
GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
Account presented, of the General Lighthouse Fund, showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 377.]
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 27th November, 1906, granting to Edward Aldridge, William Henry H. Butler, and Charles Gough, Overseers and Senior Telegraphists, Central Telegraph Office, retired allowances under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CHINA (NO. 2. 1906).
Copy presented, of Further Correspondence respecting the Decree issued by the Chinese Government on 9th May, 1906, respecting the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 378.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Royal Naval Carpenter Warrant Officers.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the members of the

  639
  Douglass Committee who advised the abolition of the carpenter (warrant officer) in the Royal Navy had taken any steps to obtain the opinion of the admirals and captains on the active list on the question before arriving at their conclusion; whether he will inquire whether the officers mentioned failed in the finding of the Committee's Report; whether steps have been taken to ascertain if the officers, admirals, and captains on the active list consider it would be to the best interest of the service to retain the carpenter on the present line; whether, in the event of the Douglass Committee's suggestion being approved, their Lordships intend merging the warrant officers at present holding the rank of carpenter to the proposed rank of warrant artificer; I and whether he will furnish the House with a list of the occasions on which Navy carpenters have been specially I commended by their Lordships for the able manner in which special and urgent repairs have been effected in connection with the stranding of the battleship "Howe" on the rocks at Ferrol and other warships.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) As stated in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Devonport on the 21st June last,†the passage in the Report referred to was an expression of opinion as to the probable result of changes in process of being carried out in the personnel of the fleet. No suggestion was made that the carpenter warrant officers had failed in their duty, but on the contrary it was well known to the members of the Committee that these officers are held in high esteem by commanding officers. No evidence was taken by the Committee on the subject. The Admiralty have not taken action on this part of the Report, and therefore it would be premature to make any statement as to arrangements which might have to be made at some future time.

  Carpenter Warrant Officers' Pay.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether I he is aware that there is a number of carpenter warrant officers, many of whom are serving in first-class battleships and
  †Sec (4) Debates, clix, 345.
  640
  cruisers, who receive about 1s. per day less than the mechanics in our Royal dockyards; and, if so, can he hold out any hopes that the pay of these warrant officers will in the near future be revised.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is possible that some carpenter warrant officers may receive less pay than certain mechanics in the dockyards, but, as the hon. Member will understand, the pay of naval ranks and ratings cannot be compared with the pay of men employed on shore. The pay of the former is associated with free quarters and victuals, whereas in the latter case the pay as a general rule comprises the whole remuneration. No undertaking can be given as to a revision of the pay of these officers at the present time.

  North Berwick Coast Defence.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have applied to the North Berwick Parish Council for a site for a look-out hut for coast defence and protection of shipping; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty have applied to the North Berwick Town Council for a site for a war signal station. The matter is still unsettled.

  Beagling at the Royal Naval College.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department received a memorial signed by, amongst others, I twenty-eight head masters of schools, stating that, in the opinion of the memorialists, beagling is a demoralising form of sport for the young, and suggesting that a drag hunt should be substituted; and whether his Department will accede to the prayer of the memorialists at the Royal Naval College.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Such a memorial was recently addressed to and received by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who replied in the sense of the Answer given to the hon. Member in this House on 24th'April last,‡and stated that
  ‡Sec (4) Debates, clv., 1393.

  641
  he was not prepared to depart from the decision then announced.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any part of the expenses incurred in the sport known as beagling at the Royal Naval College is paid for out of public funds; and whether parents of cadets are under any obligation to subscribe to the maintenance of this form of sport.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The wages of the kennel-man are paid, during the present financial year, out of funds voted by Parliament. After the 31st March next no part of the expenses of the beagles will be paid for out of public funds. A charge, not exceeding 10s. per term, is made to parents as a contribution to the general sports fund, from which money for the maintenance of the beagles is allocated by the captain.

  Cycle Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether cycle postmen are expected to clean and attend to their cycles in their own time; and whether, in view of the diversity of practice, he will issue a circular defining what is meant by minor repairs, which, in addition to cleaning, have to be performed by postmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Cycle postmen are expected to clean and attend to their cycles in their own time, and a special allowance is made to them in respect of this work. The minor repairs a postman is expected to effect are those which an ordinary rider would do for his own machine. I do not think any precise definition is needed.

  London Cabs and the Taximeter.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to sanction the use of a taximeter for motor or horse-drawn cabs in London which will register the fares in accordance with the existing regulations as to rates; and whether, on account of the difficulty of designing a taximeter which will register the inequalities of the existing cab tariff, he intends to give
  642
  effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Cabs and Omnibuses for the adoption of the taximeter by sanctioning a new scale of cab fares in which the inequalities referred to will be abolished.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Commissioner of Police has the whole question under his consideration, and I expect to receive a Report from him shortly. I can say nothing further at present.

  Work for the London Unemployed.
  MR. BROOKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Central Unemployed Committee for London has initiated any schemes for dealing this winter with applicants for employment, who are eligible under the Unemployed Workmen's Act; whether he can state what those schemes are; how many of the unemployed have applied for work under them; how many who applied have been rejected as not complying with the conditions of the Act; and how many of those applicants who do comply with its conditions have received any employment at all.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that the Central (Unemployed) Body for London have been in communication with His Majesty's Office of Works, the London County Council, and the metropolitan borough councils, and it is hoped that from 1,500 to 2,000 of the unemployed will very soon be engaged upon works provided by these bodies. The Central Body are now employing some 530 men on work at the Garden City, on the farm colony at Hollesley Bay, and on making a sea-wall at Fambridge. They are also carrying on three workrooms for women, and 107 women are employed there. I am not able to state how many persons have applied to the distress committees for work since the registers were re-opened, or how many of such persons have been found to satisfy the prescribed requirements. I understand, however, that applications continue to be received by the distress committees, and that 500 persons have already been referred by them to the Central Body.

  Delayed Appeals.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the delay in obtaining a hearing of causes before the Court of Appeal, and to the fact that certain causes have been down now more than two years for hearing without any immediate probability of coming on; and whether any remedy for this delay has been considered and if it is proposed either to form an extra Court or appoint further Judges to obviate the difficulty.
  (Answered by Sir Lawson Walton.) The delay has no doubt been considerable; but many of the cases which have stood over have been postponed at the request of the parties or for special reasons. An additional Court has been and will be organised, when practicable, to deal with arrears. No further remedy is possible without further legislation, in reference to which no decision has yet been arrived at.

  Tobacco—Irish Roll.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that tobacco manufactured in England is extensively sold in Ireland under the designation Irish roll; and whether, seeing that the term is calculated to deceive intending purchasers, some steps will be taken to confine the term to goods only made in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of the Board of Trade has not been called to the practice referred to by my hon. friend; but, if he will place before me any information in his possession on the subject, I will see that the matter is carefully considered.

  The "Midland Tribune."
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the proprietors of the Midland Tribune newspaper, published in Birr, King's County, are subjected to annoyance and inconvenience by the fact that the London General Post Office authorities insist that the English translation of the title of a Gaelic supplement, Dun na n Gaedheal
  644
  published by them in connection with the Midland Tribune, must be printed at the head of each page; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of this interference with their publications.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The, newspaper in question, bearing an English title, but accompanied by a supplement with a Gaelic title only, was submitted for registration at the General Post, Office under The Post Office Act, 1870. That Act requires the title of the newspaper to be printed at the top of every page of any supplement. It is necessary, therefore, if it is desired to register the newspaper and its supplement under the Act, that it should conform with the Law.

  Crown Receiverships.
  MR. HARMOOD BANNER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state what steps are being taken to fill the-position of Crown Receivers shortly to become vacant on the termination of the notice given to the present Crown Receivers; what qualifications will be required for the position; and what remuneration will be paid to the next receivers.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No decision has yet been arrived at.

  English County Councils and University scholarships.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the President of the Board of Education if English county councils have power to establish University scholarships; and, if so, to what extent do they use that power.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I understand that the power is exercised by many local education authorities, but I have no complete information in regard to the extent to which it is exercised.

  Scottish County Councils and University Scholarships.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if Scottish county councils have power to establish University scholarships; and, if so, to what extent is that power used by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Scottish county councils have the power to establish University scholarships under The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, and the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892. Two county councils and one burgh council have exercised this power to establish University scholarships, seven in all.

  Wexford County Council and University Scholarships.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the reasons for the refusal of the Department of Agriculture to sanction the proposal of the county Wexford County Council to establish University scholarships for students from that county.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture were advised by the Law Officers that expenditure for the purpose referred to in the Question is not permissible under the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891, or under The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.

  Kerry Potato Crop Failure.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed at a public meeting in Keel, county Kerry, dealing with the failure of the potato crop in that district; whether he has made inquiries into the matter; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received a copy of the resolution referred to in the Question. The Reports which I have received indicate that there has been a partial failure of the potato crop in the Keel district. I would refer the honourable Member to my Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 5th instant,†when I fully stated the intentions of the Government in respect of the partial failure of the potato crop in Kerry and other counties.
  †See (4) Debates, clxvi, 941–3.

  Instruction in Irish in Irish Schools.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the number of subjects specified by the Commissioners to be taught in Irish national schools, managers will be permitted, in districts where Irish is spoken, to substitute Irish for object lessons and physical drill; whether the Board has directed its inspectors to refuse such authority to managers; and, if so, will he say why this has been done, in view of Rule 119d.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in districts in which Irish is spoken they sanction the bilingual programme in all suitable cases, and do not regard this programme as over-weighted. The Commissioners are unable to consent to the omission of object lessons and physical drill, which they consider to be of the first importance in connection with education in elementary schools. They inform me that they have given no special instructions to their inspectors on the subject. Rule 119 (d) provides that managers may with the approval of the Commissioners arrange school programmes. The Commissioners do not approve of programmes from which object lessons and drill are omitted.

  Newfoundland.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Paper, No. 1 (1906), United States, contains all the correspondence which has taken place between His Majesty's Government, the Government of the Colony, and Mr. Root in reference to the Newfoundland fisheries between 12th October, 1905 and 8th October, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Paper is a complete record of what passed between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, and between His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government, on the subject of the modus vivendi up to the date, of its conclusion. It does not set out, and does not purport to set out, the whole of the correspondence on the Newfoundland fisheries question. The documents

  647
  prefixed to the correspondence respecting the modus vivendi were included in order to show the general nature of the dispute with the United States Government. Mr. Root's Note of 12th October, 1905, was included because it was referred to in his Note of the 19th October, 1905.

  Vaccine and Syphilis.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that the, official examiner of vaccine lymph stated in evidence to the Royal Commission on Vaccination, in answer to Questions 4154 and 4164, that it was then impossible to ascertain by microscopic examination whether lymph contains the virus of syphilis or not; and if, since then, any practical means have been discovered by which the presence of syphilitie germs in vaccine matter can be ascertained;.and whether he has any official information showing that the symptoms produced by inoculation with calf lymph are sometimes indistinguishable from those produced by syphilitic inoculation.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the evidence referred to. I am informed that since 1889, when the evidence was given, it has been claimed that the microbe of syphilis has been discovered. Whether or not it has been detected in vaccine lymph from the human subject I am unable to say, but, as my hon. friend is aware, humanised lymph is not now used for public vaccination in this country. Calves, as I understand, are insusceptible to inoculation with syphilis material.

  Dockyard Joiners.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he can state why the joiners employed in the Works Department of the Admiralty are paid at a lower rate I than the joiners employed in other departments of the dockyards; and whether they can be placed upon an equal footing as regards pay and prospects.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The rate of pay to joiners in the Works Department is governed by the rates paid in the building trade in the district, and it may be added that these men form a
  648
  different class from the ship joiners who are employed in the dockyards.

  American Gooseberry Mildew in Worcestershire.
  MR. BELLOC: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether in view of the fact that outbreaks of a destructive epidemic fungus disease of gooseberries, viz., the American gooseberry-mildew have now occurred in Worcestershire, and that the Board of Agriculture have at present no power to deal with the prohibition or control of the importation of diseased gooseberry bushes, on which the disease has been introduced into this country, the Government will introduce this session a short amending Act to The Destructive Insects Act, 1877, in order to give the Board the necessary legislative powers to deal with the disease.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Full inquiry is being made as to the necessity and practicability of legislation in the direction suggested by my hon. friend, but, until we are in possession of further information as to the characteristics and past history of the disease, and the nature and extent of the trade with which it is proposed to deal, it is not possible for us to enter into any definite undertaking on the subject. We fully appreciate, however, the importance of taking any action which may be decided upon as speedily as possible.

  Land Sale Bonuses.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will furnish a list, made up to date, of persons to whom bonus has been paid under the Land Act of 1903, showing in respect of each the county in which the land sold is situate, the amount of bonus paid, the total, the number of years purchase paid by the purchasers, and, so far as can be ascertained or estimated, the aggregate amount of relief in addition to price and bonus gained by each vendor from payment of stamp duty, cost of publication of notices, cost of preparation and service of notices on public departments, cost of searches in registry of deeds, titles, and judgments, negotiation fees, deduction

  649
  of title, and other normal expenses incidental to sale to tenants under previous Purchase Acts, and from which these vendors have been relieved.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that the preparation of such a Return as is asked for in the Question would be a very lengthy and difficult task, involving the examination of each ledger account since the Act of 1903 came into operation, and that it would cause delay in the proper work of the Commissioners and their staff. Any estimates of the relief afforded by exemption from stamp duties and the other matters specified in the Question could only be mere approximations, and, in some instances, would be misleading. Under Section 48 of the Act the bonus is not payable in respect of all estates sold, and in some cases in which it is payable, it is only payable in respect of part of the purchase money. In these circumstances the Commissioners do not think it desirable to undertake the preparation of the Return. They add, however, that up to the present date a total sum of £13,892,706 has been advanced by the Estates Commissioners, and the total amount drawn for bonus in pursuance to the Orders of the Judicial Commissioners has been £1,373,739.

  Disturbance at the Bushmills Presbyterian Church.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware of the annoyances and threats towards various persons since the late election for having exorcised their right of private judgment; whether he is aware that on Wednesday night, 28th November, the annual social meeting of the Bushmills Presbyterian Church was made a scene of disturbance; that a speaker was interrupted during his discourse, and that clergymen and their wives were hooted and threatened when leaving the lecture hall, and members of the congregation were stoned on their way home; whether he proposes to give police protection to these people, who have been attacked because they hold political views in opposition to the Conservative interest; and whether the Government will prosecute for the offences done on Wednesday
  650
  night, 28th November, in the presence of the police, as it is dangerous for anyone to prosecute in his private capacity.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that no complaint to the effect stated has been made to the local police. The police, however, are aware that at the meeting referred to one of the speakers was interrupted by a man who was under the influence of drink. This man was ejected from the room, and the police prevented him from returning. After the meeting a clergyman and several other persons were hooted at by some disorderly persons, and a few small stones were thrown at them. The police have issued summonses against six offenders, and the case was to be heard to-day. The police appear to have acted promptly in this matter, and the hon. Member may rest assured that all possible protection will be afforded to any persons who may need it, and that every effort will be made to secure to every one the free exercise of all civil rights.

  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. MURPHYTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to the effect of placing the teachers who were in training colleges for a two-years course when the new-salary rules issued by the Hoard of National Education in 1900 came into operation in the lowest grade provided by these rules, whereas, according to the rules in force prior to 1900, and which were chiefly instrumental in inducing those men and women to become teachers, their salaries would have been far more satisfactory; and, if so, has he used his influence with the Commissioners of National Education to make special provision for these teachers in the salary rules which at present are under consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply which I gave, on the authority of the Commissioners of National Education, to the similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Cork on 19th June.†I would also refer him to my Answers on the same subject to the hon. Members for
  †See (4) Debtes, clix, 44.

  651
  Newry and South Belfast on 30th March and 11th April, respectively.†The Commissioners now inform me that they have nothing to add to those replies. The hon. Member will see that the Commissioners claim to have conserved the vested rights of all teachers and teachers in training, so far as it was possible to do so, and that all exceptional cases were specially considered and dealt with.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Commissioners of National Education made application to the Treasury for a grant for the purpose of making the salaries of those teachers who were undergoing a two years course in the training colleges when the new rules of 1900 came into operation more in accordance with what they would have been did the old rules which induced those teachers to enter their profession still hold; and, if so, has the application been favourably considered, and if it has been rejected will he say on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It would be contrary to the established practice to give particulars of the correspondence which passes between Departments of the Government, but the hon. Member will gather from my reply to the preceding Question that no necessity arose for any communication in the present case, seeing that the Commissioners hold that they duly conserved existing rights.

  Grant for Irish Primary Education.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Cavan Urban Council drawing attention to the fact that the grant for Irish primary education is less by £578,905 than the grant provided for Scotland; as the number of pupils in the two countries attending primary schools is practically the same, will he explain why there is such a difference in the treatment; and whether he will at once take steps to secure fair treatment in respect of the grant for primary education in Ireland.
  †Sec (4) Debates, clv., 18,1315.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) : I have received the resolution in question. If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer which I gave on the 12th November to the Question put by the hon. Member for East Kerry, he will see that while the disparity between pupils and voted moneys is in favour of Scotland if the numbers of pupils on the books are taken into account, the disparity is in favour of Ireland when the numbers in average attendance are compared.

  Shirley Estate, County Monaghan.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that eviction notices have recently been served on a number of tenants on the Shirley estate, Carrickmacross, county Monaghan; whether he is aware that negotiations for the purchase of their holdings by the tenants are proceeding; will he say whether the tenants on whom the notices of eviction have been served are willing to buy on terms fixed by the official inspector employed by the Estates Commissioners; whether he will disclose the main facts connected with the negotiations for sale and purchase as between Mr. Fottrell, who has carriage of the matter, on behalf of the trustees and the Estates Commissioners; whether he is aware that the trustees are trying to sell the estate in portions and on different terms; and whether, seeing that such a method of proceeding is contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1903, he will instruct the Estates Commissioners to refuse to advance the money necessary for such a piecemeal sale; whether he will ask the Estates Commissioners to use their powers to bring the matter to a successful conclusion on terms fair to both parties; and whether he will take such action as may be necessary to preserve the peace of the locality if the measures now threatened by the trustees are carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. No proceedings for the sale of the Shirley estate have been instituted before the Commissioners, but they have received a communication from the tenants and are writing on the subject

  653
  to Messrs. Fottrell, solicitors, who, it is understood, act for the owner of the estate.

  Keel Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement in his former holding from W. O'Brien, of Ardcanaght, Keel, county Kerry; and, if so, what steps have been taken to arrange with the present occupant.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the application in question, and have referred it to their inspector for inquiry and report.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Gun Mountings.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how-many firms in the United-Kingdom are able to make the gun mountings for the twelve-inch guns.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dundee): Two, Sir.

  Life Saving at Sea.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the consequences of any abandonment of the coastguard stations of Great Britain on a large scale, and especially the difficulty of maintaining the various organisations for the saving of life from shipwreck in the event of the coastguards being withdrawn, he will undertake that no further reductions or abandonments of stations shall be made until this House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. GODFREY BARING: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the telephonic communications established round the coasts of the British Isles for the purpose of saving life from shipwreck are worked entirely, or almost entirely, by His Majesty's coastguard, and
  654
  that some portions of this system of coast communication have already been relinquished in consequence of the abandonment of certain coastguard stations, he can undertake that no further action shall be taken by the Admiralty in the direction of reduction of the coastguard until opportunity for discussion in this House has been given.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No further orders for closing of coastguard stations will be issued before the Estimates are introduced next year, as the whole subject is being considered by an Inter-departmental Committee.
  MAJOR SEELYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that there had been very serious inconvenience, especially on the coast of Northumberland, in carrying out the arrangements for saving life.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would be glad if his hon. and gallant friend would let him have any information in his possession on the subject.
  MR. GODFREY BARING:inquired if during last year there were no fewer than 300 launches of the lifeboats made by the coastguard in cases of emergency.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of such a Question.

  Small-Arms Ammunition.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, pending the provision of reliable ammunition and its shipment abroad, any of our stations abroad in the case of unforeseen hostilities would, at the present moment, have to depend on a limited war reserve of ·303-inch small-arm ammunition, which, owing to its age or other causes, can no longer be regarded as reliable, and moreover is not packed in chargers.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. Buchanan, Perthshire, E.): The war reserve of ·303-inch small-arm ammunition abroad is in all cases maintained at the figure which is considered requisite to meet the military requirements of each station. As regards the reliability of this ammunition, I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply the

  655
  Secretary of State gave him on the 6th instant.†Charger-packed ammunition is only required at stations where the troops have the short rifle; the issue of this kind of ammunition is proceeding pari passu with that of the short rifle.

  Army Rations.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the War Office has given a contract to America to supply the British Army with about 10,000,000 lbs. of corned beef; and, if so, whether, after the recent disclosures of American meat packing methods, he will say what steps have been taken to avoid risk to the health of British soldiers by supplying them with food from this source.
  MR. BUCHANAN: No contract has been placed for the quantity referred to. The balance of preserved meat due under a contract made in the early part of this year, namely, about 1,000,000 lbs., has yet to be delivered from America. An officer has been sent to America to watch the process of manufacture. Owing to the stringent regulations issued by the American Government which came into force on 1st October last, it is not anticipated that there will be the slightest risk to the health of soldiers by supplies of food from this source.

  Indians in British Columbia.
  MAJOR ANSTKUTHER-GEAY (St. Andrews Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the condition of some of His Majesty's Indian subjects who have landed in British Columbia, and have neither food, shelter, nor suitable clothing to withstand the rigours of the winter, and cannot find employment; and whether he will take steps to discourage the immigration of Indian natives to Canada unless suitable work can be ensured for them, seeing that they are constitutionally unfit to stand the severity of the Canadian winter.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS, Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe): As stated yesterday, the Secretary of State's attention has been called to this matter, and he has asked the Government of India to
  †Sec (4) Debates, clxvi.,1170–71.
  656
  take steps to discourage further emigration to Canada.

  Smallpox in India.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any system of registration of smallpox cases exists in India and any system of registration of vaccination from which it can be readily ascertained by investigators whether persons suffering from smallpox have been vaccinated or not.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: There is a system of registration of vaccinations performed throughout India. There is no such general system in respect of cases of smallpox, but there is a legal obligation to report cases occurring in most of the larger towns.
  MR. LUPTON: Has the Royal Commission not been told that vaccination in this case is absolutely useless?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS MR. JOHN ELLIS asked for notice of the Question.

  Vaccination in Bombay.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Surgeon-General to the Government of Bombay, in his instructions to vaccinators, orders that vaccination shall be made with four crosses on each shoulder; that calves, lanced at every inch all over the body, are wheeled in a hand truck from station to station about the city of Bombay, so that children may be vaccinated direct from the calf; and that this system produces violent inflammation, which sometimes causes death; whether the lymph with which the calves are originally vaccinated comes from London; and whether these practices rule in other Presidencies in India.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The Secretary of State has not seen the instructions referred to, and he has no report as to improper treatment of the calves employed. Fresh calf lymph is used in a largo but decreasing number of the vaccinations performed in Bombay City, and the percentage of success in primary vaccinations with this lymph is very high indeed; no deaths from this cause have been reported. Glycerinated lymph has

  657
  on some occasions been procured from England, and has been tried on calves with excellent results. In Bombay, as in other provinces of India, rapid progress has been made towards the substitution of preserved vaccine, prepared by moans of chloroform, for the fresh lymph.

  Manila Experiments.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India it he has any official information to the effect that ton prisoners out of twenty-four inoculated with cholera virus for experimental purposes, in Manila, died, and that the experimenters explain that the virus was contaminated with bubonic plague; and whether any precautions have been taken in India to make sure that the virus used for vaccination in that dependency is free from bubonic plague germs; and, if so, will he describe them.
  MR. JOHNT ELLIS: The preserved vaccine, which is now used largely for vaccination in all parts of India, is prepared in a strictly scientific manner at special depots, and I am advised that the possibility of its contamination by plague in course of its preparation is excluded. In provinces where arm to arm vaccination is still practised, great care is taken in the selection of the persons from whom the lymph is taken.

  Crown Agents.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State will, in the exercise of his general control and supervision over the conduct of the business of the Crown Agents, consider whether greater efficiency would ensue if the present system, under which appointments to the staff of the Crown Agents' Office are made by nomination and without an examination of any kind, were replaced by a system under which candidates were required to enter for a competitive examination in open competition.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): It is obviously desirable that appointments to Government services should be made either by competitive examination or by selection after standard ex-
  658
  amination. The Secretary of State will consider whether such a reform can be conveniently effected in the system of appointment to the staff of the Crown Agents' Office. But the questions connected with such a change are complex, and no decision can be taken upon them at present; and the Secretary of State must not be taken as admitting that there is any lack of efficiency.

  Maintenance of the Crown Agents' Office.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the funds available for the maintenance of the Crown Agents' Office are drawn in part from Protectorates which are largely financed by grants-in-aid from the Treasury, he will arrange that this House shall not again, until it has a practical and efficacious right of control, be asked to sanction expenditure which will go in part towards the maintenance of the Crown Agents' Office.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The system under which the Crown Agents transact business provides for a complete audit of the accounts of grants-in-aid colonies by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as well as for the observance of all the checks by which the Secretary of State exercises control over the Crown Agents. If the House does not regard this control as practical and efficacious expression will no doubt be given to its opinion upon some convenient opportunity.
  MR. WALKER: Can the hon. Gentleman quote any other cases where grants of public money are made without the corresponding right of control?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Crown Agents and Railway Construction.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the consulting engineers to the Crown Agents have anything to gain by recommending the construction of railways; whether they, or their representatives, are employed and receive remuneration for their services in connection with the construction of railways which have been undertaken upon their recommendation; and, if so, what has been the amount of their remuneration from this source during the last ten years, how is it

  659
  assessed, and from what fund or funds has it been paid.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The consulting engineers employed on behalf of the Crown Colony and Protectorate Governments advise only on such schemes as are referred for their advice by the Colonial Governments with the sanction of the Secretary of State. They do not recommend schemes in any other sense than that they state the merits or demerits of any project upon which they are called upon to advise, from an engineering point of view. Should the Secretary of State decide that any scheme shall be carried out, after the consulting engineers have advised, their further advice is, if advice is necessary, utilised in connection with its execution. The course followed is the ordinary practice whenever professional advice in any branch is sought either by Governments or by private individuals. How far it may be possible or expedient to furnish a Return of the nature desired requires further consideration.

  Hindoos in British Columbia.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GEAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the condition of the immigrant Hindoos who have landed in British Columbia, and have neither food, shelter, nor suitable clothing to withstand the rigours of the winter, and are without employment; and whether he will facilitate any steps taken to remedy the condition of these natives; and if he can state their numbers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the Question of the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs on this subject.
  *MR. HAROLD COX: Can the hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for enticing these Indians to go to so unsuitable a country?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: How many are there of them?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Two thousand. I think the Canadian Government are fully alive to the situation.

  Witwatersrand Mines.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether thirty-six mines on the Witwatersrand employ about 53,000 Chinamen, 17,000 natives, 8,300 whites, and that, therefore, about 6,200 whites at least are directly dependent on the retention of Chinese labour, and will be thrown out of work when these Chinamen are repatriated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The official monthly statistics do not give the numbers employed on various mines, but I have no doubt my hon. friend's figures are substantially correct. The general bearing of the Chinese labour experiment upon the interests of white labour in the Transvaal is not a subject which can be conveniently dealt with in answer to a Question. The views of His Majesty's Government have often been explained; and I should be ready to repeat them if desired on any suitable occasion.
  *MR. MACKARNESSasked if the Robinson Group might not employ a far larger number of white miners if they were allowed to recruit Kaffirs, and whether the very same mineowners referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Banbury were not pressing the Portuguese authorities to refuse the Robinson Group facilities for recruiting Kaffirs?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was no doubt true that the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and the Chamber of Mines did object to the increased facilities for recruiting native labour in Portuguese territory, which the Government believed would very probably result in supplying any deficiency in the labour supply to the mines which the absence of Chinese might create.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether it was not the fact that Mr. Robinson had surrendered his right to 3,000 Chinese coolies because he preferred to employ white men.
  MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say that that was so, and that a beginning had already been made in spite of many delays with the employment of white labour on one of the Robinson mines.

  Native Prisoners in Natal.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the rumoured negotiations for the removal of a body of native prisoners from Natal to the Transvaal, he can state under what law and by what authority it is possible to transport natives from Natal to the Transvaal; and, in the event of such natives being so transported, under what law and by what authority they can be detained in the latter Colony against their will; and whether, in previous cases, such as the detention of the Natal Native Chief Langolibalele in the Cape Colony, special legislation had to be resorted to to which the assent of the Crown was necessary.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The necessary legislative authority is given by the Natal Act No. 15 of 1905, and the Transvaal Ordinance No. 36 of 1904. Special legislation was passed in the case of Langolibalele and in some other cases which, in view of the provisions of the above Ordinances, is not required in the present instance.

  Cost of the Native Rising in Natal.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the approximate cost of suppressing the native rising in Natal; and whether any portion whatever of that cost will be defrayed out of Imperial funds.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The approximate cost is £700,000, all of which will be borne by Natal, not by Imperial, funds.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked if this included the cost of the regiment at Pieter-maritzburg.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he understood the extra cost was, but he could not say that the ordinary annual cost was or ought to be charged against South Africa.

  Tilonko.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Natal Chief Tilonko was on the 30th July tried by a Court constituted of
  662
  military officers of a Colonial corps set up by the Governor of Natal and the Commandant of Militia under martial law on a charge of sedition, and was convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with hard labour and to a fine of 500 head of cattle; whether he is aware that the persons constituting this Court were indemnified and the proceedings of the Court, which was held with closed doors, were rendered valid by anticipation by an Indemnity Act previously passed by the Parliament of Natal, which was itself dissolved before the trial began, and whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the unreliable character of the evidence for the prosecution, and the severity of the sentence which has now been endured by Tilonko for several months, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consider the propriety of advising that in this case the prerogative of pardon may be exorcised by the Crown.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In this case the Governor acted on the advice of his responsible Ministers, and the Secretary of State does not think that he would be justified in over-ruling him in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy under such conditions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether, without over-ruling the discretion of the Governor, some representations would be made with regard to the prerogative of mercy.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would be very glad to see some modification of the sentence, but he could make no official statement.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLthanked the hon. Gentleman for his sympathy, in which he hoped other chiefs sentenced with Tilonko would be included.

  New Zealand Butter Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies can he state what was the proportion of first-grade butter to the total exported when grading was first instituted in New Zealand, and what is the proportion in the present year according to the latest information; and can he state what is the difference in the price of

  663
  first-grade New Zealand butter now and that current when grading was instituted.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Compulsory grading was instituted by the Dairy Industry Act of 1894. The first year for which full statistics are available is that ended 31st March, 1896, when the percentage of first-grade creamery butter was 93 per cent., while that for the year ended 31st March, 1906, was 97·85 per cent. In regard to the difference in price as between these years, no precise figures can be quoted as a guide, as values fluctuate from year to year according to the general state of the market irrespective of influences such as grading. It may be stated in general, however, that New Zealand butter, since the institution of grading, has attained a higher standard of value represented by many shillings per cwt.
  MR. BOLAND: I hope the hon. Gentleman will convoy the information to the Irish Department of Agriculture.

  Cost of Grading New Zealand Butter.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what the cost is per hundredweight of grading butter in New Zealand: and what is the proportion borne by the producer and the New Zealand Government respectively.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The cost of grading butter in New Zealand by the Government of that Colony is stated to be approximately 1½d. per cwt. The whole of such cost is borne by the Government. The figure named does not include the cost of cold storage and freezing at the grading depots at the ports of shipment. Practically the whole of such cold storage charges are now borne by the producer or shipper, and are considered as pertaining in greater degree to the business of oversea export than to the official grading system of the Colony.
  MR. BOLAND: Can the hon. Gentleman give the total cost?
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice of the Question.

  Judicial Reforms in Macedonia.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
  664
  for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed judicial reforms in Macedonia are to be prepared, presented to the Porte, and applied by Austria and Russia, to the exclusion of Great Britain and the other Powers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): No proposals for the introduction of judicial reforms in Macedonia have yet been put forward. Whenever a definite scheme is proposed, the question of the best method of applying it will be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who appreciate the importance which attaches to the Question.

  The Congo International Conference.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government have promised their full support to a plan for summoning an international conference to consider the situation in the Congo Free State; and whether His Majesty's Government will, in conjunction with the United States, take any steps in this direction.
  SI REDWARD GREYthe plan of summoning an international conference has not specifically been mentioned. But the United States Government have recently intimated their desire to contribute to the realisation of whatever reforms may be counselled by sentiments of humanity, and by the experience of past or present administration in the Congo State. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, such an announcement is most cordially welcomed by His Majesty's. Government. But, pending the decision to which Belgium may soon come, it is unnecessary to make any further statement at the moment.

  Maderia—Portugese Concessions to a German Syndicate.
  SIRW. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Bill is now before the Portuguese Cortes under which it is proposed to grant exclusive rights to a German syndicate to build hotels and sanatoria in the island of Madeira during a period of thirty years, to import furniture and material free of duty, and

  665
  to build and run casinos and gambling rooms in connection with the said hotels; whether he is aware that the import duties in Madeira average from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. ad valorem; that the Portuguese Government has frequently promised equal treatment for British subjects with the subjects of other Powers; and, seeing that the granting of the exclusive rights and privileges above referred to would constitute a breach of these pledges, and expose British subjects long established in Madeira to ruinous competition and loss, whether His Majesty's Government will make such representations as seem necessary on the subject to the Portuguese Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: According to the information in my possession, no Bill such as that alluded to by the hon. Member has yet been brought before the Portuguese Chamber. I am aware that the Portuguese import duties are high. His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that any legislation is contemplated which would be contrary to the satisfactory assurances which have already been received from the Portuguese Government with regard to the protection of British interests and property in the island of Madeira from unfair competition.

  Income-Tax and the London County Council Tramway Profits.
  MR. WATERLOW: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income-tax was paid by the London County Council on its tramway profits for the year 1905–6; and what was the amount of profit on those tramways on which tax was paid.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The information cannot be given without breach of the injunction to secrecy in respect of profits under Schedule D.

  Windlesham Motor Fatality.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Lieutenant Paton, who was charged at Windsor on Saturday, 1st December, before the Berkshire magistrates, with the manslaughter of Mr. Hart, who died from injuries caused by a motor car
  666
  driven by the defendant at Windlesham, on 23rd October last, in which case several witnesses spoke to the car having been driven at a speed estimated at between forty and fifty miles an hour, and in which the magistrates, without calling on the defence, dismissed the charge; and whether in view of the evidence that the defendant was travelling beyond the statutory limit of twenty miles an hour, he will state if he proposes to take any further action to protect the lives of persons using the highway.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): Yes, Sir. I have now had the opportunity of making inquiries into this ease, and as the result I am consulting with the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether further proceedings against the defendant should not be taken.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Is it not the fact that Lieutenant Paton says that his car was not travelling twenty miles an hour?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The case is under consideration. I can make no statement.

  Case of Jane Isabella Sharpies.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Jane Isabella Sharpies was sentenced at the City Police Court, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on 29th October, 1904, to be detained in a home until she was sixteen years of age, and that, although she attained that age on the 5th August last, she has not yet been released from the home at Chipping Norton, in Oxfordshire, to which she was sent, the officials of the home stating, in reply to the mother's protestations, that they intend to keep possession of the child until she is eighteen years old; and whether he will order the instant release of this child and cause immediate inquiry to be made into the conduct of the officials concerned.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: This girl was found to be living with prostitutes. At the same time as she was committed her mother was, I am informed, sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard

  667
  labour for keeping a disorderly house. The girl was not committed to an industrial school, but was dealt with under Section 9 (1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, and I have no jurisdiction in the matter. As she is over sixteen she is a free agent. I have, however, communicated with the authorities of the home, and I am informed that she remains there entirely of her own free will and that the officials have not stated that they intend to keep her until she is eighteen.
  MR. BOWLES: What was the order of the Court in this case?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say at the moment. I have given the hon. Member the facts, and I am not inclined to interfere in the case.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Was not the order of the Court to hand the girl over to the Court missionary and not to send her to an industrial school?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given.

  Unlawful Acts and Homicide.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will endeavour to see that persons who, deliberately breaking the statutory law, happen to commit homicide, receive some punishment as a deterrent.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Anyone is liable to conviction who, as the result of an unlawful act, accidentally commits homicide; but it is for the magistrates to decide whether the evidence in any particular case is sufficient to warrant committal for trial; and if the accused is committed, it rests with the jury to decide whether he is guilty.

  Motor Speeds—Blackpool Coroner's Ruling.
  MR. CATHCART WASON:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the direction of the coroner to the jury at Blackpool, with reference to Clause 9 of The Motor Act, 1903, which enacts that a person shall not under any circumstances drive a motor
  668
  car on a public highway at a speed exceeding twenty mile per hour, in stating to the jury that if it were done early in the morning when few people are stirring, or in a place which might be unfrequented, the act would be excusable if. ordinary precaution were used, and that it did not matter the time of day, as that was only another way of saying when there was no traffic about; and what action he proposes to take with reference to this coroner.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed by the coroner that the words quoted had reference to Section 1 of the Act (which relates to driving recklessly or at a speed dangerous to the public) and not to Section 9 which fixes a maximum rate of speed. The coroner did not say any thing to imply that a car might be driven anywhere or under any circum stances at a speed exceeding twenty miles an hour. On the contrary, he expressly stated that the driver had no right to drive down the road where the accident occurred at a speed of twenty miles an hour.

  Metropolitan Police Rate.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount produced by the Metropolitan police rate for the years 1905 and 1906.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The sums received in the years 1905 and 1906 in respect of the proceeds of the police rate of 5d. in the £ levied on the parishes in the Metropolitan Police District were respectively £1,044,941 10s. 1d. and £1,077,548 15s. 8d.

  Police Arrests.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what facilities are afforded by the police to a man arrested in a public street for any offence to obtain witnesses from the bystanders who have been present during the time of the alleged offence.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It is open to any bystander to proceed to the police station or police court in order to tender his testimony, and no obstacle would be placed in the way of the prisoner asking any bystander to do so. A person under

  669
  detention at a police station is afforded all possible facilities for communicating with his friends or his solicitor.
  MR. LUPTON: Are we to understand that a man arrested will be allowed to ask bystanders for their names and addresses?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I was asked a general Question and I have given the best answer I can.
  MR. LUPTON: But a definite instruction from the Home Secretary might be useful.

  Newspaper Descriptions of Crime.
  MR. W. R. REA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the growing practice amongst a certain section of the Press, of publishing articles minutely descriptive of the methods practised in certain forms of crime, such as coining and house-breaking; whether he has official information showing that such articles are an incentive to imitation, and thus directly productive of an increase in the crime of the country; and whether there are no means by which the abuse may be checked.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The attention of the Home Office has more than once been drawn by Judges and others to the mischief done by such articles as are mentioned in the Question. One of the worst of these articles was withdrawn from circulation some years ago, but the evil it did survives, and quite recently a case occurred where it had led to the commission of crime. I entirely concur with what my predecessor said in this House on 1st August, 1904; and, if necessity arises, I shall be prepared to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action. If it is found that the law requires to be strengthened, I am confident that I should receive the support of the House in legislation for its amendment.

  Naturalisation Fees.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a letter written from the Colonial Office by the
  670
  hon. Member for North-west Manchester, advocating a reduction in the amount of the naturalisation fee at present charged as a condition upon which an alien resident in this country may obtain the privileges of British citizenship; whether this letter was written with the Home Secretary's approval or knowledge; whether the matter is one within the competence of the Colonial Office to decide; and whether the Government intend to lower the fee.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to the letter referred to. The subject of it, as my right hon. friend knows, is under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, and it is one on which my hon. friend the Member for North-west Manchester is perfectly entitled to express his private opinion. The question as to whether or not the naturalisation fee should be lowered has not as yet been under my consideration. I may, however, observe that in considering applications for naturalisation I attach more importance to the careful inquiries which are made into the personal qualifications and fitness of the applicant than to the amount of the fee.

  Constables in Charge of Police Stations.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the rank and qualification of a constable in charge of a police station, and, if any, what instructions are given to him; and what power is placed in his hands of retaining or dismissing a prisoner who is brought into the station.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The rank of the officer depends on the local circumstances. In all the more important stations he is an inspector; in minor stations a sergeant. The qualifications of the officers appointed to this post are ascertained from their record of service, and tested by departmental examination. It would be impossible within the compass of a Question to discuss the powers of the station officer, and the instructions given him; but I may refer the hon. Member specially to Section 69 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and to Section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

  Grants to Distress Committees.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will give the names of the various distress committees to which money has been granted, and the amount that has been granted to each of the said committees.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The total amount distributed in England and Wales out of the grant up to the present time is £29,450. I will send my hon. friend a statement as to the particulars of the payments.

  Seizures of Diseased Pigs at Birmingham
  *MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the value of pigs seized and destroyed weekly in Birmingham for tuberculosis has been estimated at £100, and that it has been admitted by the town clerk of Birmingham that the approximate value of pigs destroyed each week for the four weeks ending 17th November was £31 18s.; and whether he will take steps to have those dealers recompensed whose pigs have been destroyed in the interest of the public.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am not aware of any authority for the estimate referred to, and its accuracy is denied by the town clerk on behalf of the town council. The approximate value given by the town clerk of the carcases and portions condemned during each of the four weeks ending 17th November is as stated in the Question, but I am informed that the number of pigs slaughtered during this period is considerably above the average of the year. I have no authority to cause the dealers to be recompensed us suggested.
  *MR. FFRENCH: Why are not the owners in Birmingham compensated as they are elsewhere—inGermany for instance? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the pigs slaughtered have passed the Government inspectors; at the port of embarkation? What are the special qualifications of the Birmingham inspectors for the work?
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no doubt as to their qualifications. It would be quite possible for an animal inspected at the port of embarkation to develop disease subsequently.
  MR. THORNE: What becomes of the condemned pigs?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope by means of the Bill I have before the House to ensure that no pigs are sold which are not fit for human consumption.
  *MR. FFRENCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the justice of compensating poor, dealing men, whose pigs have been seized and destroyed in the interest of the public?
  [No Anwer was returned.]

  Motor Bus Skidding.
  MR. ROSE:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any communication from the Automobile Club of Great Britain and Ireland with reference to trials they propose inaugurating for ascertaining the most effective devices, in compliance with the regulations of the Local Government Board and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for preventing side-slip and skidding by motor omnibuses; and whether he can see his way to appoint a representative to watch the trials in the interests of the public.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received a communication to this effect, and have accepted the invitation to send an officer of the Local Government Board to watch the proceedings for testing the capacity of any devices that may be submitted for competition.

  Hatherleigh Postmaster.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the post office at Hatherleigh, Devon, has recently been moved into a building occupied by a political club; that the postmaster is an official of the said club, and that there is direct communication between the premises of the club and the post office, and that the postmaster is authorised to

  673
  deal in liquor; and whether he will endeavour to find other premises for this, post office.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): This Question has necessitated local inquiry which is now being made. I will give the hon. Member an Answer as soon as possible.

  Post Office Hampers.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, during the two years ending July, 1906, 80,000 now Post Office hampers, of the average value of £1 per hamper, were, at the instance of the Postal Department, burned by the contractors, who were paid £1 per 100 for destroying them; whether the only reason for destroying these hampers at the public expense was that the Department had decided to adopt another kind; and whether some of these hampers are still being burned by a South London firm of contractors who are being paid by the Post Office for destroying them.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The baskets to which he refers were not now, but upwards of eleven years old; the number destroyed was about 3,000 not 80,000. They were heavy baskets of an obsolete pattern; and as it was found that an economy would be effected by replacing them, even though not quite worn out, by a much lighter receptacle, it was decided after full consideration to withdraw them from use. If they had been sold they would have realised only a very low price; and as it was not considered desirable, being a Post Office pattern, that they should be used for ordinary purposes, there was no alternative but to destroy them.

  Leeds High School Teachers.
  MR. O'GKADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the case of Miss James, a pupil teacher studying at the Thoresby High School, Leeds, who applied for admission to the Ladies Training College, Cheltenham, and whose application was refused, has been submitted to him by the Leeds Education Authority for inquiry; whether such inquiry has been made; and, if so, with what results.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, S.): The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Owing to present circumstances I have not yet had time to make inquiry into the case. The matter seems to me to be of such a nature as to necessitate a most careful inquiry and not merely cursory investigation. It is for this reason that I prefer to postpone my inquiry for a short time in order that it may be done thoroughly, and with full consideration of the somewhat wide issues of principle which it will of necessity raise in regard to our whole training college system. The hon. Member may rest assured that the case will not be let slip, and that my delay, so far from implying indifference to it, is on the contrary due to my serious concern in regard to the principles involved.
  MR. O'GRADY: Shall I repeat the Question in a week's time?
  MR. BIRRELL: The Education Office at the present moment is very heavily worked. I will communicate with the hon. Member at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Education Grant.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will issue a statement explaining the principles on which the £1,000,000 to be granted under the Education Bill is to be allocated to the education authorities.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on this matter on 26th April and 9th July.†The latter reply also gave the reasons why we cannot at present come to any definite conclusion on the matter. I should perhaps add that the grant of £1,000,000 was made contingent upon the passing of the Government Education Bill.

  Compulsory Sheep Dipping.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the resolution recently passed by the National Sheep Breeders' Association,
  †See (4) Debates, clvi., 28; clx., 493–4.

  675
  urging the Government to put into force at once an universal order throughout the whole of Great Britain for the compulsory dipping of sheep; whether he is aware that the outbreaks of sheep scab are now in excess of the outbreaks at the same season last year; and whether the Board will now proceed to carry into effect an universal sheep-dipping order in accordance with the wish of the main body of sheep breeders in the country.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYwe have received the resolution referred to, but the proposals made would involve a system of penalties on the owner of diseased sheep. This would require legislation and the Board do not consider the necessity of such a measure has been established. It is true that the number of cases of the disease during the two weeks ended 1st December was greater than during the same period last year, but this temporary increase has not been maintained, and for the year as a whole the outbreaks have been reduced by nearly one-half. The Board are now considering the question of extending the requirement of compulsory dipping universally.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the danger to the fruit-growers of Great Britain in consequence of the outbreaks of American gooseberry mildew in this country, a danger admitted by the Board in the circular just issued by the Department, he will undertake at the earliest possible date to introduce legislation giving power to the Board, both to prohibit the importation of gooseberry bushes into Great Britain, and also to deal effectively within the country with infected stocks and insect pests, on the lines of the Destructive Insects Act, 1877.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Full inquiry is being made as to the necessity and practicability of legislation in the direction suggested by the hon. Member, but until we are in possession of further information as to the characteristics and past history of the disease, and the nature and extent of the trade with which it is proposed to deal, it is not possible for us to enter into any definite
  676
  undertaking on the subject. We fully appreciate, however, the importance of taking any action which may be decided upon as speedily as possible.

  Sheep Scab.
  MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware of a number of recent cases of sheep scab in various districts in the south of England, which have been traced to sheep purchased at some of the larger sheep fairs; and whether, for the protection of purchasers, he can see his way to appoint an inspector at the principal sheep fairs in England.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: If my hon. friend would be good enough to give me rather more specific information as to the locality of the outbreaks to which he refers, the Board will be glad to cause fall inquiry to be made into their origin. The administration of the orders relating to sheep scab rests, however, with the local authorities, and the appointment of an inspector to attend fairs would be a matter for their decision.

  Castletownroche Train Service.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the train service at Castletownroche, on the line of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; if he is aware that no train stops at this station, in connection with any train north of Mallow, after 2.18 p.m.; that passengers leaving Dublin by any train later than 9.15 a.m. cannot reach Castletownroche the same night by rail; and if he will make representations upon the matter to the company concerned, in order that the requirements of the people of this and surrounding districts may be adequately provided for.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr Kearley, Devonport): The Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway company concerned. They admit that the facts are as stated in regard to through trains, but state that further facilities for long distance passenger traffic could not be given

  677
  without extra expense which the amount of the traffic would not warrant. The company add that there is a good local service.

  Humber Bank Floods.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the breaches made by the gales of last winter in the Humber bank, thereby flooding the low lands of Kilnsea and Easington; whether he is aware that nothing has been done to repair these breaches and that the Treasury have repudiated their obligation after maintaining them for over fifty years; and what steps he proposes to take in the event of this winter's storm sweeping through the bank and affecting the navigable channels of the Humber, thereby causing silting and injury to the approaches to the city of Hull and the port of Grimsby, and also endangering the anchorage for shelter of His Majesty's Navy and the mercantile marine.
  *MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have received reports as to the damage done by the gales of last winter to the sea banks of Kilnsea and Easington Levels, whereby a considerable extent of low lands became flooded, and I under-stand that it is the case that the breaches in the banks have not since been repaired. These banks have always been maintained by the local Commission of Sewers at the expense of the owners of the lands requiring protection, and not by His Majesty's Government. The Board of Trade are advised that there is no reason to anticipate that the navigable depth of the Humber would be affected to any appreciable extent by the passage of water across the low lands in question.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked if it were not the fact that every extra high tide of the sea sweeps through the breaches. Would the Government not reconsider their determination to refuse assistance for remaking the bank.
  *MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade sent down an eminent engineer, and the Royal Commission on Sea Erosion has also taken evidence on the matter.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: But does the hon. Gentleman realise that before the Royal Commission can report the damage done may be irreparable?
  *MR. KEARLEY: I have had many representations to that effect from the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Have not the Government for fifty years maintained a portion of the bank?
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, in connection with the Spurn lighthouse.

  Butter Deliveries—Railway Delays.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case in which four kegs of butter consigned from Limerick to Messrs. White & Symon of Maldon on 6th November were not delivered until 19th November; and what action, if any, the Board of Trade proposes to take in the matter.
  The hon. Member had given notice of the following Question also:—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case in which three boxes of butter were consigned to Morgan Hicks, Parth, South Wales, from Limerick on 26th November, and not delivered on 4th December; is he aware of the fact that those complaints in regard to Irish produce are general; and can he say what steps will be taken to insure punctual delivery.
  *MR. KEARLEY: I will cause inquiry to be made into the matters referred to in these Questions, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Company Law.
  MR. TOULMIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the number of companies which do not comply with the statutory requirements as to the holding of annual meetings; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to secure the observance of the law.
  MR. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir, the question referred to has engaged the

  679
  attention of the Department and will be dealt with in the Companies Bill which my right hon. friend hopes to be able to introduce next session.

  Spurn Breakwater.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury have repudiated their liability to maintain the Spurn Breakwater at the mouth of the Humber; whether he is aware that the breaches in the banks made by the storms of last winter near Kilnsea have been entirely neglected; will he say what has been the amount annually contributed for the purpose of maintaining the Spurn during the last twenty years; what is the acreage of land reclaimed from the Humber (including Sunk Island), and what is the annual amount of rent paid into the Exchequer from such land; and whether in the event of the Humber Conservancy being willing to accept the obligation of the Treasury respecting the maintenance of the Spurn, he will transfer to them the income arising from these lands, such money to be expended in maintaining the Spurn and the Humber generally.
  MR. KEARLEY: I have been asked by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to the Question addressed to him by the hon. Member. The Treasury have neither repudiated nor admitted liability for the maintenance of the Spurn towards which a sum of £1,200 has been voted by Parliament for many years past. The area of land reclaimed at Sunk Island is estimated at about 5,000 acres. That reclamation has been effected partly by nature and to a great extent by works carried out at the expense of the Crown or its tenants. The gross rental of Crown property on Sunk Island is £10,000. The suggestion that such income should be transferred to the Humber Conservancy on their undertaking the maintenance of the Spurn cannot be entertained.

  Clydebank Licences.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which six new licences were recently granted by the Clydebank Bench, several of the applicants already holding one or more licences; whether be is aware that no
  680
  vote was taken by the Bench when the licences were granted; and whether it is proposed to take any action in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): No information on the subject referred to by my hon. friend has reached me.

  Appeals Against Summary Convictions in Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACXEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that magistrates at petty sessions in Ireland I are empowered to sentence to terms of imprisonment of not more than one month, on summary conviction, persons brought before them and that such sentences may be accompanied with hard labour; that from these sentences the prisoner has no power of appeal, and that an increase of sentence to admit of the lodging of appeal is not uncommonly refused by magistrates, and that such refusal has been frequently the subject of severe comment by County Court Judges and Judges of the High Court; and; having regard to the fact that in England there is in every case a power of appeal from the decision of magistrates, and that the senior Member for London on the 17th May, 1887, when the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Bill was passing through Committee, gave a pledge, which was not observed, that in all cases under that Act there should be an appeal, he will consider the advisability, with a view of assimilating the English and Irish criminal law, of advising the Government to introduce a measure providing that in Ireland in all cases there should be a power of appeal from the decision of magistrates at petty session.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): The right of appeal from an order of imprisonment by a Court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland is, as stated in the Question, confined to sentences exceeding one month in duration. Magistrates are sometimes asked by the persons convicted to increase lesser sentences with a view to allowing an appeal, and in some cases they have refused to do so. As the hon. Member is aware, during the course

  681
  of this session an Amendment to the Street Betting Bill was adopted by the House, extending this right of appeal in Ireland in the case of offences which will be created by that Bill if it becomes an Act. Personally, I see no objection to a more general extension of the right of appeal, and it is prima facie desirable to assimilate the criminal law in England and Ireland in this and in many other respects. These are matters, however, upon which I can give no pledge on behalf of the Government.

  Irish Intermediate Education.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether the programme of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the period after 1907 is expressed to be the programme for any particular year or years; if not, for how long will such programme continue in force; and whether there will be power to alter it every year as may be found necessary.
  MR. CHERRY: The programme of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the period after 1907 is not expressed to be the programme for any particular year or years. It will continue in force until altered by the Commissioners. There is power to alter it at any time as may be found necessary.

  Burns Hartopp Estate.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any and, if so, what stops have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to secure the reinstatement of Patrick Sullivan, an evicted tenant on the Burns Hartopp estate, now living in Cahirciveen, whose case has been inquired into recently by one of their inspectors.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): the Estates Commissioners imform me that their inspector has recently inquired into and reported upon the application for reinstatement which was made by Patrick Sullivan, an evicted tenant from the Burns Hartopp estate. The Commissioners will take the inspector's report into consideration as soon as possible.

  Swinford Potato Crop Failure.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been specially drawn to the condition of the people in the union of Swinford due to the failure of the potato crop in that union; and whether he will consider the desirability of placing a sum of money at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of carrying out drainage and other much needed works in that union during the coming spring.
  MR. BRYCE: The Reports which I have received indicate that there has been a partial failure of the potato crop in the Swinford Union, but that other crops have been good, and that good prices for live stock prevail. It is not anticipated that any exceptional distress is likely to exist in the union for some time to come, but the condition of the people will continue to be carefully watched. The Congested Districts Board hold that they cannot undertake works for the relief of temporary or exceptional distress. Their power to execute improvement works is confined to estates which have been purchased by and vested in them. The Board are alive to the importance of carrying out any works they can carry out in the places and at the times most likely to be helpful for the relief of distress.

  Dr. Bird's Bantry Estate.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. R. Bird's estate at Kilcrohane, Bantry, county Cork, was vested in the Congested Districts Board; and, if, so, whether striping and rearrangement of holdings will be immediately carried out so as to enable the tenants to earn money and thereby prevent their suffering from the partial failure of the potato crop.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the estate in question was vested in the Congested Districts Board on 25th October last, and that the Board are now proceeding with improvement works on the estate.

  Irish Agricultural Statistics.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  683
  Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the enumeration of agricultural statistics in Ireland is deficient in that it does not contain tables of average and comparative prices of agricultural produce from different parts of the country; and will he direct that this omission be remedied next year.
  MR. BRYCE: Information as to the average and comparative prices of agricultural produce in different parts of Ireland is published in the annual Returns of prices of crops, live stock, and other products, which is issued by the Department of Agriculture and presented to Parliament. The Department do not consider it desirable that this Return should be incorporated in the agricultural statistics.

  Longford Rent Reductions.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any representation has reached the Land Commission from county Longford farmers, on the subject of recent rent reductions in that county; whether he is aware that in nearly all the cases heard recently the highest reduction given did not exceed 15 per cent.; and can he undertake to make representations to the Commissioners upon this subject.
  MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform mo that they cannot find that any representations from county Longford farmers have reached them on the subject of recent rent reductions in that county. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question yesterday, the Land Commission conceive that they ought not to discuss, in answer to Questions in this House, the result of judicial proceedings for the fixing of rent. If either of the parties to a particular case is dissatisfied with the decision, he has the right of appeal as provided by statute. I have no power to interfere with the procedure for rent fixing which Parliament has left to the Land Commission.

  Cavan and Leitrim Railway—Flag Stations.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution passed recently at a public meeting
  684
  held in Ballinamore, county Leitrim, protesting against the closing of four flag stations on the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway to passenger and goods traffic; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, and have informed the chairman of the meeting that the Irish Government have no authority to interfere with the action of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company in the matter complained of, but that it appears to be open to the ratepayers, under Section 47 of the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railways Order, 1884, to make representations to the Board of Trade in respect of any alleged default on the part of the railway company in the working of the line.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act Inspectors.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will submit to this House the names of all persons who are candidates for inspector, ships under The Labourers (Ireland) Act 1906, before any appointments are made.'
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; it would be an unprecedented and most inconvenient course to submit to this House the names of candidates for any offices in the gift of His Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Young's Culdaff Estate.
  MR. DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that over 200 tenants on the estates of R.G. Young, Esq., Culdaff, county Donegal, signed agreements to purchase their holdings under the Land Act of 1903 in March, 1904;that the estate was inspected in August, 1904, and all the queries raised by the inspector satisfactorily discharged; whether, seeing that the tenants have since paid punctually interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the purchase money, he will say what is the reason for the delay in vesting the holdings in the tenants, by which the amounts of the hall-yearly payments would be reduced; whether the Commissioners have received letters from the tenants complaining of the delay; and, if so, why they have not replied to them.
  *MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform mo that the estate in question was first inspected in August, 1904, but having regard to the fact that a considerable number of the tenants had refused to sign purchase agreements, and that part of the estate was congested, the Commissioners decided to deal with the estate in two portions, one of which was to be sold to the tenants by direct sale (Section 1) and the other to be sold to the Commissioners under Section 6. With the object of making an offer to the vendor for the latter portion, the Commissioners instructed another inspector to visit this portion of the property and also to report on certain holdings included in the direct sale which were described as judicial holdings. On consideration of the second report the Commissioners decided to visit the estate personally and suspend the completion of the sale until they should have an opportunity of doing so. Owing to the demands upon the time of the Commissioners, which made it difficult for them to leave Dublin, some time elapsed before this visit could be made. As a result of their visit the Commissioners have decided that a further report must be made before the advances applied for could be made. The inspector to whom the estate has been referred has met with an accident and will not be able to visit the estate until January, and until his Report has been received no further action can be taken. Letters have been received from several tenants on the estate and will be dealt with when the Commissioners have received the further Report.

  Mr. George Hewson, J. P.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. George Hewson, J.P., estate agent, Dromahair, is a candidate for the position of inspector under The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906; and, seeing that the Local Government Board are aware that Mr. Hewson's appointment would be unpopular in the county of Leitrim, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing some other person.
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to whether the gentleman named is likely to be a candidate.

  Evicted Tenants in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners have completed their investigation of the position of the evicted tenants in county Clare; and what steps are to be taken for their reinstatement into their holdings.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received 200 applications for reinstatement from evicted tenants in county Clare. The Commissioners have obtained reports from their inspectors on 156 of these cases. In thirty-four cases the prices which the Commissioners will be prepared to advance for the purchase of the holdings, which are in the owners' possession, have been communicated to the owners, and have been accepted in thirty of these cases. In fifty-one cases the Commissioners have decided, for various reasons, to take no action. In thirty-three cases the applications have been noted for consideration in connection with the distribution of any untenanted land which the Commissioners may acquire; and the remaining thirty-eight cases have yet to be ruled on by the Commissioners.

  Radio-Telegraphic Convention.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to name a sitting for the purpose of a discussion on the Radio-Telegraphic Convention.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): An opportunity will be given on Tuesday.

  Cruel Sports.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD:I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that, on 27th November last, a deer turned out to be hunted by the Berks and Bucks staghounds, after a run of some fifteen miles, got entangled in a barbed wire fence which it had attempted to jump, and while thus entangled was so severely bitten by the hounds and so seriously injured by the barbed wire that it subsequently died in a cart into which it had been lifted for the purpose of removing it; and if he is

  687
  aware that, on 4th December last, another deer was turned out by the same hunt in a maimed and injured condition, and after a short run was captured and carried on a gate to a neighbouring farm, where it was killed by order of the master of the hounds; and if he will introduce legislation at an early date to put down such so called sport.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware whether the facts are as my hon. friend states, but if such cruelties are perpetrated and we can do anything to top them I shall be very glad. I am against cruelty of any sort whether under the name of sport or otherwise.

  Plural Voting Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the rejection of the Plural Voting Bill in another place, the Government will introduce at an early date a measure to include one man one vote, adult suffrage, and the removal of all obstacles which prevent the legislative expression of the will of the people as declared through their duly-elected representatives.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I am afraid that I cannot make any announcement on this subject.

  Spiritural Peers.
  MR.FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will give an opportunity during the present session of Parliament for considering a Motion affirming the desirability of relieving spiritual peers from attendance in Parliament.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see any possible opportunity.

  Swindon Magistrates.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the list of newly appointed magistrates for the borough of Swindon; whether he is aware that out of the published list of twenty-four appointments one only of that number represents labour, although five nominations were made from organised labour; and can he say what are the objections taken to labour men in the borough mentioned.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Lord Chancellor informs me that he is under the impression that three representatives of labour are on the list of justices appointed for Swindon, but will inquire. Whether it is one or three no other labour names were sent to him direct, nor were any others recommended to him. The Lord Chancellor is prepared to receive and consider the names of labour representatives from any responsible quarter, but in order to prevent misunderstanding he suggests that the names be sent to him direct, accompanied by recommendations on which he can act, as in other cases.
  MR. FLAVIN: Cannot the Irish Lord Chancellor act in the same direction?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The ways of Ireland are strange.

  Scottish Prisons.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the sum of £33,800 is to be spent on a new prison in Scotland though there is large spare accommodation in Perth and other prisons; and whether, in the interests of frugality, he will consider the advisability of utilising this sum as an instalment towards new barracks for housing the Scots Greys.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware that this sum is given as the estimated cost of the new prison at Greenock. It is the case that the accommodation in Perth prison is not fully occupied, but the constant removal of prisoners for considerable distances is attended with serious public inconvenience, and therefore this new accommodation is required. Let me add that I should think there can be no question in any circumstances of permanently housing the Scots Greys in Scotland. That regiment has only had ten turns of two years and under of service in Scotland during the last hundred years.

  Orange River Colony.
  *MR.BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if the Constitution of the Orange River Colony will be included in the discussion fixed for the 17th instant; and, if so, whether Papers will

  689
  be at once laid upon the Table giving full particulars of the proposed Constitution of that Colony.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthe general outline of the Orange River Colony Constitution will be announced to Parliament on Monday. No Papers will be laid at present.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked when the grant of the Constitution would actually be made.
  SIRH. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If any definite Answer can be given to that Question it will be given on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. F. E. SMITH: Does the Prime Minister propose to give an opportunity for discussing the Papers on Newfoundland?
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I am afraid there is no chance of a discussion on them this session.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything as to the business of next Wednesday?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid Wednesday would be an opportunity, if Members desired to embrace it, for a discussion on the Army; but, if he might tender friendly advice, he would say that the new session was not very far off, when a more complete discussion would be possible. After the several discussions were finished during the course of next week, they would take up the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to Bills and other business of that sort, of which there was plenty.

THE TIMES AND THE HOUSE.
MR. WEDGWOODasked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Housing of the Working Classes whether his attention had been called to the premature publication in a newspaper of a summary of the Report of the Select Committee, why the Report was communicated to the Press before it
690
was circulated to the Members of the House, and whether he could give the House the names of the persons who contributed the summary to the Press.
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid, as Chairman of the Select Committee referred to, that he desired to say that he had noted with equal surprise, and even greater annoyance, the paragraphs in The Times of two days ago, and the additional paragraph in to-day's Political Column of that paper. Perhaps he might be permitted to say, in justification of himself, that in no way, either directly or indirectly, was he responsible for imparting this premature information to the paper. As the House might be aware, the Chairman of a Select Committee possessed no control over his colleagues in matters of discretion of this character, and any information that might be given by any member of the Committee of course lay solely in the discretion of that member, and the chairman, in his capacity, had no control. If a member of that Select Committee had given the information he could only express the opinion, which was largely shared in all quarters of the House, that such action was greatly to be deplored, and that every means should be taken to avoid the recurrence of it in future Select Committees. The House would realise that he was placed in a somewhat invidious position in being asked categorically to give certain answers to his hon. friend. They had been sitting on that Select Committee since the early days of the session, a very laborious and long task, and the chief feature which had characterised the Committee had been the harmony and good feeling among all the members. He had no desire to disturb that harmony by assuming, as it were, an inquisitorial position over his colleagues, over whom he really had no control in this matter. This was by no means the first experience of such leakages—it had become an almost constant practice; and he was sure his statement would be borne out by other chairmen, that it was extremely injurious to the results and the impressions of the Report of a Committee that premature information in an emasculated and abridged form should appear in a paper before the publication of the Report. The hon. Member was proceeding to make a suggestion, when
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the reply of the hon. Member was somewhat exceeding the usual limits.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERbowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling. He had wished very respectfully to indicate a way in which they might be able to prevent these leakages in future. He believed Members themselves were the chief offenders. He hoped that at an early date next session the Government would take steps which would ensure that these premature paragraphs did not appear in the Press.
MR. KEIRHARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of these frequent leakages, it would not be worth while to appoint a small Committee to consider and report on what steps might be taken to prevent their recurrence in future.
AN HON. MEMBER: Would it not be possible to prosecute the newspaper in question as a receiver of stolen goods?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the Prime Minister if he did not see his way at once to accede to the request of the hon. Member below the gangway, whether the Government would not, at any rate, take this matter into very serious consideration during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that Questions had already been addressed to him on these subjects. These leakages had been especially frequent of late, although complaints had been made in the House for many years past. He ventured to suggest that they were almost an infringement, certainly an abuse, of the privileges of the House which required serious consideration.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am quite alive to the importance of the matter. I do not know that it has got worse recently. My memory goes back a great number of years to a time when there was less soliciting in the immediate neighbourhood of the House, and Members were not assailed at every step by gentlemen whose object it is to screw out of them all the information they can. If Members are foolish enough to succumb to this species of terrorisation or
692
persuasion—I do not know which—these things will happen; but let us hope that Members, now that they have heard this little discussion, may button up the recesses of their minds against these encroachments. I will bear it in mind, and if any step can be taken to assist the promotion of better secrecy I shall be very glad to take it.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, generally delegate to the Sergeant-at-Arms your power in reference to tickets for the Press Gallery. In the case of repeated instances of misconduct by a paper—and The Times has been the chief offender—if these instances of misconduct are repeated may I ask you whether you consider it, in your discretion, right to admit the agents of that paper to the courtesy of the Press Gallery I That would put an end to it at once.
*MR. SPEAKER: If there were any question of misconduct on the part of any paper admitted to the Press Gallery or Lobby I should at once take notice of it; but I am not in a position to say, when a paper is handed by an hon. Member of this House to a newspaper and then published by that newspaper, that any charge of misconduct can be made against the newspaper.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With very great respect, Sir, I put this aspect of the case before you. These leakages have repeatedly been the subject of comment in this House; editors and proprietors know that they are violating Parliamentary etiquettes and the rules of this House by it; and, if that is the case, would it not lie in your discretion not to give tickets to the papers whose proprietors and editors offend in this respect?
*MR. SPEAKER: The best way to stop a leakage is to fill up the hole.

LAND VALUES TAXATION, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 379.]

POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 380.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read.
Report to lie on the Table and to be printed. [No. 381.]

NEW BILL.
  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS BILL.
  "To permit the release of Offenders on Probation in certain cases," presented by Mr. Secretary Gladstone; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 369.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said in moving the Third Reading of this Bill he had again to thank the House for the support and the assistance he had received from all quarters, from all parties, and through all stages. The House would remember that the Bill was to consolidate, as well as to amend, the law. The fact that hon. Members had not taken advantage of this to discuss at length that part of the law which it was not proposed to change had justified the course taken by the result, and he hoped by this Bill they would all have learnt to deal less in legislation by reference in the future. This measure contained no new question of the first magnitude, but it did deal with difficult and important points in connection with labour. He gratefully acknowledged the valuable assistance he had received from his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General, and from his
  694
  hon. friend the Member for the Cleveland Division, to whom the excellent machinery to carry out the purpose of Clause 8 of the Bill was really due. The Government were also indebted to the hon. Member for Berwickshire for his pioneer labours upon this question and his long persevering efforts in bringing those labours to legislative fruit. He felt sure he was voicing the views of all Parties in the House when he expressed his regret at the inability of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to take part in the debates on the great extension of the parent Act which the right hon. Gentleman himself brought in in 1897. It was not without a personal tremor that he had looked forward to the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman in this House either in the way of criticism or in support of these proposals, and he thought the House had greatly suffered from the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, the cause of which they all deplored. He had no occasion to detain the House long upon this subject. The recent discussion extended over four days, during which all the leading points of the Bill were fully discussed. But there was one matter upon which he desired to say a few words. The House in its collective wisdom had shown an inveterate hostility to all the attempts of the Government to exempt from the operation of this Bill the small employers. Now practically all classes of persons under contract of service, whether the employment was dangerous or safe, were included in the purview of this Bill. While in 1897 6,000,000 of people were brought within the operation of the Act, and in 1900 1,000,000, there were now 6,000,000 in addition. This great extension did involve benefit—he hoped great benefit—but it also, naturally, involved some danger to which this House should not shut their eyes. A number of small employers would be brought under the operation of this Act, and it was to be hoped that they would be raised to a sense of the duty imposed upon them by it; to a sense of the necessity which lay upon them to insure against the liability to which they would be exposed in order to be in a position to meet it in compensating a workman who might be injured. Experience showed that a mass of these people would not insure whatever steps were taken, and

  695
  that experience was reinforced by the opinion expressed in the Committee which considered this question. It was pointed out that 24 per cent. of those engaged in the building trades did not choose to insure, although the Act had been in operation for some six or seven years. If the Government required any pressure this knowledge and this information from the Committee would hasten their desire to deal with the whole subject of national insurance in rotation to the law of employers' liability. But in the meanwhile they would do the best they could through Government agencies or otherwise to warn employers, great and small, throughout the country, of the risks they were under and also to tell the workpeople of this country what rights were given to them under this Act. In the coming session at an early date the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would bring in a Bill to provide a test of the financial solvency of the insurance companies, which dealt with cases under employers' liability, so far as it could be provided in the time at their disposal and, in that connection he desired to express the hope that small employers in particular would be specially on their guard against mushroom and insolvent companies. He wished to appeal through the House and to the Press throughout the country to give the fullest information in their power in regard to this Bill as soon as it passed into law, so that employers should realise their risks and the workmen their rights under it. He believed the provisions of the Bill would be helpful to masses of the people throughout the country, and in so far as they extended and improved the working of the Act of 1897 they would in no sense impair the good relations which existed between employer and employed, but would strengthen the foundations of the national industries by the free and general recognition of the claim to compensation on the part of those who unhappily were the victims of accident in the course of their daily toil.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid this was the final stage of a Bill which every section of the
  696
  House had helped to pass. There had been no desire on the part of the Opposition to put any difficulties in the way of the Bill or to do anything else than make it a workable and good measure. He desired to associate himself with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in expressing regret at the absence of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who had made this subject his own. The measure that his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham brought forward in 1897 marked a new era in the law of compensation, and no one could regret his absence on this occasion more than his colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench. He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposed early next session to introduce a measure dealing with the question of the solvency of insurance companies. He had ventured on Report to point out the danger that existed with regard to the insurance companies designed by this Bill to pay the compensation. The small employers had not the same opportunities as the large employers of of finding out whether a company was solvent. He recognised the Government's desire to fill that gap. They had shown already their interest in the subject by introducing a measure this year. That measure, which was withdrawn, might be taken as a token of the measure to be introduced next year, and all that he would ask of the right hon. Gentleman was that he would introduce it at an early date, so that it might become law when this Bill came into force next July. The experience of nine years working of the Act of 1897 had shown the necessity of an amending Bill, and he himself last year introduced such a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a bolder course in this Bill, and had consolidated the law. Although the Opposition approved of the principle of the Bill, there were certain points with regard to which they were not quite satisfied with the decision of the House. First of all, there was the reduction of the fourteen days to seven, the period that was to elapse after the accident before compensation was to be claimed. The House, he thought, had by its action in connection with this matter unnecessarily increased the cost of compensation, and placed a heavier burden on the employers, because the fourteen days were certainly a check

  697
  on the malingerer. His experience at the Home Office was that no men were more anxious than hon. Members below the gangway to put an end to malingering, but by reducing the period they had taken away one of the securities against malingering. When preparing the Bill last year he consulted a large number of those who had knowledge of compensation cases, and their opinion was that a distinct period should elapse before compensation was given, and that they should not throw on the employer any expense not necessary to the work. Obviously one factor in wages was the expense of production, and if the cost of production was raised too high some part of it would be transferred from the employer to the workman. That was one point which he regretted had been altered in the Bill. On the introduction of the Bill in March he had expressed a doubt whether the seven days proposed by the Government would really please either the employer or workman. The former desired three days and the latter fourteen. However the right hon. Gentleman had struck the balance and the House had accepted it, and he trusted the result would be for the benefit of both the men and the masters, although he doubted whether they were not placing too heavy a burden on the shoulders of the employers. Again, he did not think this Bill could easily or properly be applied to seamen. He was still unconvinced as to the soundness of the policy of including seamen in this Bill, not that anyone in this House, and certainly not himself, desired to deprive seamen of the right to compensation, but he still thought the better way to have dealt with seamen was by an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, as recommended by the Committee. He did not think that the provisions and machinery of the Bill could easily or properly be applied to seamen. The prolonged absence of ships from home, and the frequent changes of the crew, which must in many cases prevent the production of evidence and the witnesses necessary to prove or disprove liability, would place great difficulty in the working of the Act. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee on this point weighed very strongly with the late Government when they deliberately omitted seamen with the view of including them in the Merchant Shipping Act. In regard to the
  698
  new proposals relating to industrial diseases, he was glad to see the hon. Member for Berwickshire back in his place. He was sure it had been a matter of very great regret to the hon. Gentleman that illness prevented him from being present during the Report stage of this Bill. He knew how keenly the hon. Gentleman had felt and pressed the necessity for legislation of this sort. He welcomed the new proposals with regard to industrial diseases, but there was one point he was not satisfied with and that was the deletion of the sub-section refusing compensation in case of a workman's wilful and persistent disobedience to special rules and regulations for his protection. He thought that if a workman persisted in breaking such rules he should not obtain compensation. It was well known that a large percentage of accidents which occurred in course of employment were due to sheer carelessness and disobedience to orders. He believed that if rules made by employers, which were known to, and conspicuously displayed before, workmen, were obeyed one fourth of those diseases would not be contracted. Rules in case of industrial diseases were more often evaded than rules made for protection against machinery. In the latter case, the workman had before him the danger of revolving machinery, which he could see in motion, and it conveyed to him the knowledge at once that it might cause death or mutilation. But in the other case the effect was more distant, and the workman did not take the same precautions. He persisted, notwithstanding the danger of lead poisoning, in eating with work-soiled hands, or in picking wool, which might lead to anthrax, without protecting his mouth. It was hard on the honest employer, who did all he could by rules to warn the employees of the danger they ran, that he should be liable for compensation. He wished to express regret that the Home Secretary had left the question of the old men an open one. He was aware that hon. Members below the gangway held that this proposal would not have the effect which he thought it would, namely, to make it harder for old men to obtain work. It was the opinion of the Departmental Committee that the effect of the Act of 1897 made it more difficult for old or infirm men to find employment,

  699
  because it was difficult to persuade the insurance companies to take the risks without charging a higher premium, and the result was that the employers preferred younger men, and older men found it more difficult to obtain employment. They were moving tentatively, and must move tentatively with regard to workmen's compensation, but this Bill was no doubt a great advance on, and carried forward, the Act of 1897. That Act for the first time gave to a workman, as an incidence of his employment, the right to obtain compensation for accidents received in the course of his work. But some day or other, some scheme of compulsory insurance would have to be devised, probably in the shape of State insurance. In the meantime he trusted this Act would work well, and though it placed in some cases too heavy a burden on the employer, he thought they all ought to agree to wish it God-speed, and hope it would shortly become law.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT:expressed his acknowledgments to the Home Secretary, and also to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for their observations respecting himself. He thought it was generally admitted throughout the House that this Bill was a distinct advance in the law of workmen's compensation, and as such he thanked the Home Secretary and congratulated him upon having now entered upon the last stage of the Bill. At the same time his remarks would be more in the nature of a criticism of the Bill than a pœan of praise, although he prefaced those remarks by saying he felt very strongly that the Bill was an advance. There were two serious omissions in the Bill. The first was the omission of outworkers from the power of obtaining compensation. The other point related to dangerous trades. The exclusion of outworkers was to his mind a serious defect. He did not deny that there were difficulties. The objections raised by the Government were that the employer had no control over the outworkers or places in which they worked, and that it was difficult to say who was the person employing the outworker at the moment when injury to health arose or accident Occurred. The question as to who was the employer was not a very serious difficulty, because the outworker
  700
  did not often take work from more than one employer or did not take work from another until he had finished the work of one employer. As to the objection that the employer had no control over the person who undertook work for him, he would ask what real control had the ordinary employer over the ordinary workman? Had the employer any real control over his employees in a factory or in a mine which might be miles from the place where the real control was situated? Where a man avoided control over the worker by deliberately electing to give out his work he ought to be made responsible for accident or illness, for he derived pecuniary advantage from giving out the work to people who were not within the Factory Acts. When the small laundries were excluded by the law an enormous number of employers broke up their laundries into small branches in order to escape the obligations of the law. There was a danger not only to the workmen but to the public in certain small workshops. Any old dilapidated workshop, for example, seemed to be regarded as good enough for brushmaking, and where the work was carried on in living-rooms the risk of anthrax was greatly increased. The risk which employers with factories would run under the Bill would very likely lead some to give up their factories and employ outworkers who would not get compensation if they contracted anthrax. He regretted the decision which the House arrived at in regard to his Amendment which was so ably moved by his hon. friend the Member for West Ham. He could not help thinking that decision was arrived at owing to a misunderstanding. When his hon. friend pointed out for instance that the manufacture of india-rubber was not included in the reference, the answer of the Government was that it had been included.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said the reference was not limited to any particular trades.
  MR. TENNANTsaid the hon. Gentleman stated distinctly that it was included in the reference. He thought it was an unfortunate slip and had considerable weight with the House. This trade was recommended a long time ago to be included in

  701
  the schedule of dangerous trades, but it was not included, and his right hon. friend the Home Secretary, in refutation of the argument of the hon. Member for West Ham, showed him a paper which he said contained all the things the Home Office had done in the last six or seven years, as if that were a refutation of the argument that these things had taken a long time.
  *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he only referred to that to show what action the Home Office had taken when it was stated that practically nothing had been done.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he had never taken the line that nothing had been done. He only said that what was recommended by the Committee had not been carried out. He regretted the decision of the House, because the workpeople engaged in trades outside the schedule would not be able to obtain compensation. He was sorry the two defects he had mentioned had been allowed to remain in the Bill. If wiser and less timorous counsels had prevailed with his right hon. friend, he would hot have allowed these two defects to remain in the Bill.
  *MR. GILLsaid he desired to support the Third Reading, because he believed the Bill was absolutely necessary. The existing law was of an altogether too restricted character, but that was not the case with regard to this Bill, which was a very extensive one. He thought, however, it was a pity that outworkers were left out of its operation. There were, he understood, a great number of difficulties connected with their inclusion, but he and his friends hoped that before very long some solution of those difficulties would be found. He liked the Bill because it removed so many anomalies with which workmen had been acquainted in the working of the present Act, especially in regard to the thirty feet limit, lending workmen, and loading outside of an employer's premises. The Bill contained very important provisions which would be welcomed by the working class. One of the most important was the basis upon which compensation should be assessed. Previously
  702
  if a man happened to be ill or off his work through slackness of trade he would not only have lost his wages, but have been penalised in the amount of compensation he would be entitled to receive. But he was pleased to know that under this Bill the workman would be entitled to get 50 per cent. of a full week's wages so long as it did not exceed £1. That would be very much welcomed by the working classes. There had been a great deal said about the question of dating back after the first fortnight, and also about the question of malingering. He thought the matter had been greatly exaggerated. There were 1,500 cases of accident in his own society and it was difficult for him to remember a single case among those of which he had charge of a person malingering. The great trade unions paid compensation as well as employers; that was a safeguard against malingering, and employers could be satisfied that their interests as well as those of trade unions would be looked after in that respect. The question of costs had been mentioned. He did not think that the cost was going to be so great as some people seemed to suppose. When the Compensation Act was passed in 1897 there were many gloomy prognostications as to the cost, but the fears then entertained had not been realised. An important provision in this Bill, which would be largely welcomed in Lancashire, was that in regard to the scale of compensation for young persons earning from 10s. to 20s. a week. They had been accustomed to receive only 50 per cent. of the average wage, and in many cases that had not been more than 5s. a week. It was now provided that it should be 100 per cent. so long as it did not exceed 10s. a week. A more important provision still was that in regard to permanent incapacity. He bad known several sad cases where lads had been permanently disabled, and when they were able to earn 10s. a week they were without compensation for the future. That was on account of the provision in the Act that when the person who had been injured was able to earn a sum equal to his previous wages in another job the compensation was to be stopped. There was a valuable provision in this Bill which enabled the Judge to review the award to give

  703
  the injured person 50 per cent. of what probably he would have earned if he had not been injured. The provision in regard to the medical referee would remove much suspicion which had prevailed. When the medical referees were also the medical advisers of insurance companies, whether they acted justly or not it was impossible to remove from the minds of working men the suspicion that in the capacity of judges they were not acting fairly. Another important provision was that dealing with the principle of commutation. There had hitherto been no uniformity in the awards, and the Bill would have the effect of putting the work of ascertaining the amount payable for commutation on a more satisfactory basis. As to medical examinations, injured person had been harassed very much indeed by too frequent examinations on behalf of insurance companies. He maintained that in this connection insurance companies should not be the arbiters of what was to be done. He had known cases in which workmen, in order to get rid of these harassing examinations, had accepted most inadequate commutation of the amount of their compensation. He was glad the Government had accepted the claim put forward by labour representatives that payment should be made to workmen suffering from industrial disease as well as to workmen suffering from accidents. Of course there were only a few of these diseases in the schedule, but he had confidence in the Home Secretary in this particular matter and believed that he would extend the provisions as soon as he could possibly do so and include other dangerous trades. he thought the Bill was a very satisfactory one. There were one or two points which might have been improved, but, taking the Bill as a whole, he looked upon it as one of the best pieces of industrial legislation ever passed, and he thought it would be taken in that way throughout the land. He thanked the Government for the sympathetic way they had listened to the views the Labour Members had put before them. He believed the Labour Members had done something to make the provisions of the Bill better than they were when first presented to the House.
  *SIR CHAELES DILKEagreed with the hon. Member for Bolton in expressing general approval of the Bill, and he congratulated the Home Secretary on the admirable manner in which he had conducted it though its various stages. The Bill had been greatly altered in many matters against the will of the Government, and they could not blame the Government for defects which they might foresee so far as it had been extended beyond the extent to which the Government themselves desired to push it. There was perhaps some haste shown in one matter with which he would not now deal at any length. It was a matter in which sudden action was taken. It was felt that what was said by the Attorney-General went further than the words which were put in the Bill. He thought that should be kept in view and that the words should be changed if there was any possibility of doing so. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that persona who were substantially dependent should not be excluded in certain cases of obvious hardship. The particular words adopted were perhaps a little crude in form and did not extend to all those cases. He only now called attention publicly to the matter in the hope that it might be dealt with in a better manner than by the words adopted. As to the inclusion of industrial diseases as well as accidents in the Bill, he pointed out that the dangerous trades which had been scheduled employed only an infinitesimal portion of the workers of the country. It was conceded that the schedule did not covet all the diseases, but no procedure by schedule could deal with the major part of the suffering from industrial disease. He agreed with his hon. friend behind him, who had rendered great service in these matters, that the blot on the Bill was the conspicuous exclusion of outworkers. There was the great difficulty of compulsory insurance in connection with the extension of the Bill to workers in small shops and to domestic servants. When he referred to the French law in a recent debate, the Under-Secretary of State argued in reply that, in the case of small employers, servants could not get compensation without making the employers bankrupt. It had already been the case in regard to 'small"

  705
  agriculture that either there was no compensation or the employers had become bankrupt. Cases of that kind had occurred in England. In Ireland the Compensation Act passed by the last Parliament had been absolutely a dead letter in regard to small agriculturists. When they introduced to the benefits of the Bill domestic servants and shop assistants without restriction they ought to face all the difficulties to which his right hon. friend alluded, and see that the law was not illusory. They ought to see that people did get compensation if they were entitled to it. His right hon. friend, he believed, was making inquiry as to the possible treatment of the outwork system, and he only hoped that if the Government saw their way to legislation, and if their insurance scheme was in working order, they would extend those principles to outworkers.
  *MR. J. WILLIAMSsaid he would like to express his sincere appreciation of the manner in which the Bill had been handled by the Home Secretary. The Bill was a great improvement upon the existing law, and for that Labour representatives were very grateful. He hoped that the Third Beading would be allowed to pass without a division, and that the treatment of the Bill when sent up to the House of Lords would be such as to carry the approval of both groups of Labour Members and the Government. He did not propose to speak at length upon the Bill, because he believed that all that could be intelligibly said upon it had been said, and that the greatest intellect in the House at the present time could not find anything new to say about it. The Amendments that had been embodied had given great satisfaction to the large number of workmen in his constituency. He would not go into detail upon those Amendments, but he would say that he was very glad that payment of compensation where the incapacity for work was not less than two weeks was to be for and from the first week. There was another matter which this Bill put right, and that was the computation of the average earnings. An unlimited amount of money had been spent in. litigation upon this matter, and he was very glad to find that this clause would meet the requirements
  706
  of the workmen of the country. The wilful misconduct clause was a great improvement on the existing law. He believed that under the existing law the employers and the insurance companies had greatly abused this clause and that the modification would be a means of avoiding a large amount of litigation. He was glad to find that the Government had extended the provisions of the Act to domestic servants. The principle underlying the present law had been lost sight of by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. That principle was to give compensation and not to prevent the giving of compensation. There was, in his opinion, a vital difference between awarding compensation and the principle of assessing the damages to be given. He hoped that the House of Lords would bear that difference in mind in dealing with the Bill. Good as the Bill was, they wanted another Bill which could be applied more generally and more closely to the economic conditions of the huge masses of the people constituting the labouring classes of this country.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid that the Home Secretary in his opening speech told the House that this Bill practically covered all classes of workmen whether employed in dangerous or non-dangerous trades. They all recognised full and frankly the great advance made by the Bill over the existing Act, but the right hon. Gentleman had betrayed a little parental partiality towards his measure.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I was speaking in millions.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid that there was one class of people who had been left out of the Bill, the outworkers; and his fear was that in the course which the Government had taken they had done injustice to that class. His contention was that everything which Parliament did to tighten the obligations of the employers in factories drove the work out of the factories into the homes of the work people. He would quote one trade which had formerly been carried on in factories with hardly an outworker—he meant the

  707
  scouring of clay pipes. The Board of Trade lady inspector in a recent Report said that that trade was exceedingly injurious to the health of the girls employed, and that the only method of preventing the danger was the erection of large ventilating fans. Many of the best employers had erected these fans at large expense, but one employer who was asked to do so refused, and got rid of all his girls. If the conditions in the factories were made more stringent, and at the same time the conditions of the outworkers were not correspondingly tightened, the tendency would be to increase disease. He was glad that the Government had included anthrax in the scheduled diseases, but he would point out that a great deal of the handling of wool, hair, and bristles was carried on in the homes of the workpeople, and unless the obligations on the employer in factories in respect to ventilation and compensation were pro tanto applied to outworkers the danger of carrying on those dangerous processes in the home would be infinitely increased. As to accidents to domestic servants, it was said that these were very rare. He doubted that very much under modern conditions. He knew there was a difficulty of proof in the case of the outworker, because he was away from the immediate control of his employer; but because that class of employee would have a difficulty in establishing his claim was no reason why he should be deprived of the chance of doing so. He thought the balance of advantage was strongly in favour of throwing this liability on the employer, whether the workman was occupied in the factory or outside. He appealed to the Government to do something in this matter, but at all events he hoped they would take into very real and serious consideration the whole question of this class of labour, bearing in mind how much misery existed among this class in cases where accidents had occurred.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid, that taking as he did a very deep interest in the question under consideration by the House, and having more than once in the last Parliament introduced a Universal Workmen's Compensation Bill prepared by the
  708
  Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, the Miners Federation and the Textile Workers Union, be felt that he must not allow this opportunity to pass without offering his warmest congratulations to his right hon. friend, the Home Secretary, the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary, on the enormous step in advance the Bill that was now being passed through one of its final stages would effect. It came very nearly to giving effect to the Bill he had had the honour to introduce, inasmuch as it would increase the number of those workers enjoying the benefit of workmen's compensation from 6,000,000 to 12,000,000. He felt sure that the 6,000,000 additional workers—men and women—to whom this measure did what was an act of justice in regard to this matter, would greatly appreciate their inclusion within the scope of the measure. He had had no sympathy or support whatever from the Tory majority in the House, when he had introducd his Bill, but he gathered from speeches made by Members of the same political Party now sitting in Opposition that he might regard them as repentant sinners. It was indeed a death-bed repentance when they rose the other night and proposed the inclusion of 2,000,000 of domestic servants within the scope of the Bill. He welcomed that inclusion, but it was so hastily adopted by the House that he hoped, now that they were included, it was clearly understood that in case of accident they were to receive not only half their wages, but half the cost of their board and lodging as well, in case they were deprived of that, as that formed the greatest part of their earnings. He cordially supported the Bill.
  *MR. REESsaid he recognised the impatience of the House to get this Bill through. He hoped, however, he might be allowed to call attention to the case of the lascars. When he last referred to their case and upheld their claims the hon. Member for Stoke thought fit to place him under the ban of the Labour benches, not appreciating the fact that the lascar, though a brown brother, was a British subject, a tremendous trade unionist, and, indeed, in one sense, an employer of British labour in so far that wherever he worked he provided work for

  709
  the Briton who overlooked him. Thus it was wherever white and coloured labour met—and might this simple elementary fact one day dawn upon those who represented labourin and out of this House. The function of white labour was the supervision of coloured labour wherever the two colours met. He thought that when the dread sentence of excommunication had to be passed it was the Hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil who tolled the bell, read the book and held the candle, and he wondered if that hon. Member appreciated the fashion in which his lieutenant wrote "Ego" over the first, and "et rex meus" over the second Labour Bench. He had supported this Bill right through, except that he did not follow the hon. Member for Thanet in his chivalrous campaign on behalf of the domestic servant, nor the hon. Member for North West Ham who represented secularism, socialism, and sentimentalism in their most attractive guises, or disguises in this House. No one, however, had spoken for his Indian friends. His right hon. friend would no doubt tell him that the Lascar was included in the benefits of Clause 7, and reading the definitions of "seaman" in the Act and in the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 he agreed, but they had had spirited object-lessons of late to make them realise that the intentions of draughtsmen and frontiers of Bills were of little account in the Courts, and he should like either a positive pronouncement, or a promise of an Amendment in the Lords. Hon. Members would allow that seeing how many clients he had, and how greatly they were interested in the Bill, he had not taken long in putting their case, and it must be remembered that lascars had no such legislation to fall back upon in India at the other end of the voyage.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he wished to join those who had preceded him in giving his blessing to the Bill, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having included the law on this subject within the corners of one Act. He was quite sure that it was a great advantage to those who had to put this Act into operation or to assist the Courts in its administration, to find all the provisions in
  710
  one statute, and not to be driven as they often were to many statutes in order to get the full meaning of the Act itself. He had also to thank the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the readiness with which they had acceded to many suggestions made upstairs in Committee and upon the Report stage. No doubt some of the principles embodied in the Bill were not accepted at first by those who represented the Government, but when it was shown that a vast body of people were in favour of them the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, with graciousness and reasonableness, at once adopted them. He wished most heartily to echo the remarks of the Home Secretary with regard to the Press. The Press could help this Bill immensely by calling the attention of employers to their responsibilities and of workmen to their rights. There were a number of 'small organisations organised by men who had been working men themselves, or still were working men, which had for their object the bringing before the vast bulk of the people a knowledge of the law and placing before them a knowledge of the means of obtaining the compensation to which Parliament was giving them a right. He noticed that a certain section of the newspaper Press had been attacking these small organisations and had called for their prosecution. He knew that there were such things as champerty and maintenance, and that there was good ground for thinking that cause for these classes of actions had existed in the past, but he thought there was no justification for the attacks which had been made. It was never intended that the law in those matters should be put into force for the purpose of depriving vast multitudes of people of the benefits of the humane laws put upon the Statute-book, and he hoped the Solicitor-General would not put the law into operation against those small societies, which existed for the purpose of bringing to the knowledge of the people a series of laws made for their benefit. Those small societies had been dealt with very unfairly by a section of the newspaper Press, who had done absolutely nothing in the past to help the people for whose benefit this law was introduced. There was only one other, point with regard to the machinery

  711
  for carrying out this law. The county courts had had their jurisdiction for cases at common law increased from £50 to £100. That had increased their business considerably. The scope of this Bill having been widened and vast numbers having been brought within its operation, there would inevitably be thrown on the county courts an amount of business which in all probability they would not be able to do. Had the right hon. Gentleman borne that fact in mind? Those who were associated with the operation of these Acts knew perfectly well that the county courts were overwhelmed with work. There would have to be some, devolution which would enable the Judge to take up these cases in the morning and to throw upon the registrar more of that class of work which now wasted the time of the Court in the morning, the best time of the day. It was a fact that workmen attended at the Court with their witnesses and doctor and sat there all day only to come away at the end without their case having been reached. That would occur two, three, and four days running. He hoped that point would be considered. It could not be done in this Bill, but certainly something would have to be done to prevent the congestion of work, and the Government might consider whether they should not bring in some Amendment of the County Courts Act for that purpose. This Bill, in which he took great interest, was now going to another place. Although he had not got adopted all the Amendments he moved, he was successful with some, which would be found to be useful when the Bill came into operation. Others he had not succeeded in, but he was going to have another shot with them elsewhere. He was grateful for what he had been able to accomplish, and he joined with those who had preceeded him in thanking the Government for this measure and the manner which they had crarried it through. It was a useful piece of legisation which he hoped would bring security and relief to hundreds and thousands, he might even say millions of the workers of this country.
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid that, if the few words he had to say were directed to points of criticism and suggestion, he was sure that his right
  712
  hon. friend would believe that it wag not because he did not fully appreciate the value of the Bill which had been so successfully piloted through the House. The first point he desired to raise was with regard to the definition of "workman." He particularly drew attention to the fact that not only was the outworker excluded from the provisions of this Bill, but also the casual worker under certain conditions. He had one instance in mind which would serve to ill strate his point. There was the case of the charwoman, who was employed in most cases in a domestic establishment, and he thought this Bill would not only be unjust to her, but also to the regularly employed domestic servant who would be in some danger of dismissal and whose place would be filled by the charwoman. With regard to the outworker, he had taken an active part in the organisation of the Sweating Exhibition which excited so much attention during the past summer. In connection with that work and other matters he had been frequently brought into contact with the outworker, the sweated worker. In a great number of instances it was not true that the outworker was working for more than one employer, and yet this appeared to be the chief argument for their exclusion. Not only with regard to this Bill but with all legislation they were often too much inclined to give attention to exceptional cases. It was as a rule the exaggerated attention given to exceptional cases that created more trouble and litigation than the inclusion of what was universal. He hoped that even at this, the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman would include the outworker in the Bill. Another point to which he, wished to draw attention was the case of the posthumous child, to which apparently no attention had been given. A case had recently some before Judge Bryn Roberts in which a woman had borne a child to her husband after his death. She brought in action against the insurance company for compensation and Judge Bryn Roberts had to decide the case against this poor woman because it could not be said that either the woman who had lot been co-habiting with the man for some months or the child who was born

  713
  after his death was dependent upon him. The dependency of posthumous children had been entirely overlooked by the Legislature. Then there was that serious question which had been raised so eloquently on the Report Stage by his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham, the question of the diseased worker. The introduction of the principle of compensation in the case of industrial disease was perhaps the point upon which the Government could most congratulate themselves. It was here that we were taking the lead in the world instead of following the example of France and Germany in these labour matters. The right hon. Gentleman put into the schedule certain cases of disease which were known to belong to particular trades, and then set up a Departmental Committee to inquire into various diseases. When that Committee was assured that those diseases belonged to a particular trade they were to be added to the schedule. The scheme was a good one, for this reason, that in these scheduled cases when the workman was able to get from the certifying surgeon a certificate that the disease from which he suffered arose from the occupation he followed, his case for compensation must be disproved by the employer or compensation must be paid. He desired to retain that system of scheduling and he wanted his right hon. friend to continue the operation of that Committee. There remained a tremendous number of heart rending cases. What was to be done with such cases? He suggested that the present schedule should be kept exactly as it was, and that at the end of the clause some such words as these should be introduced, "The provisions of this Act shall also apply to cases of disability arising from disease, the result of processes not mentioned in the third section of this Act, but in regard to such diseases the onus of proof that the incapacity arises through the employment shall lie with the workman." In other words, the cases of industrial disease or incapacity from industrial disease would be divided into two parts—one the scheduled cases (those in which the largest number of cases of disease arose) and the other the industrial diseases not included in the schedule, and as to these
  714
  the onus of proof would lie with the workman. If they put such a provision in the Bill they would confer by it compensation in more cases than they would through the scheduled trades, because the man who had his lungs choked by dust or filings could in the great majority of cases prove that the injury occurred through his employment, and the onus of proof Tested with him. He thanked the Home Secretary for his Bill, and for the sympathy and skill with which he had put it through this House. The right hon. Gentleman had a right to pride himself upon the introduction of the principle of compensation for industrial diseases into the Bill, and he hoped he would complete his work by giving consideration to the point he had put before him.
  *MR. CARLILEpointed out to the hon. Member for North Paddington that the posthumous child was provided for in the definition clause. The hon. Member for Barnsley rather twitted hon. Members on the Opposition side with what he called a death-bed repentance in regard to the domestic servant at the end of the discussion on the Bill. But if anyone came to a death-bed repentance on the subject it certainly was His Majesty's Government and not the Members of the Opposition. The Opposition were favourable to the Bill when introduced, and though Amendments and criticisms had been made their feeling towards the Bill was sympathetic and kindly. All they desired was that the measure should if possible be thoroughly discussed, and if they on that side could in any way contribute towards improving the measure, they were nothing loth to do so, and they heartily congratulated hon. Members in all parts of the House upon the measure as it now stood. They realised that a voluntary system on such a subject would be absolutely impossible, and while this measure brought compulsion upon employers he hoped it would not in any way interfere with or discourage the great voluntary efforts made from time to time by employers for the good of their workpeople. Undoubtedly a great burden must fall upon some one, and the employer was the best able to bear it, and to make provision for it. They

  715
  could not help feeling a great deal of sympathy with the small employers, who under the provisions of this Bill would have to bestir themselves. He hoped the workpeople would not show less concern in the friendly societies, but would increase, if possible, their industry and enterprise in connection with these, most valuable societies, which were doing such grand work in the country. With reference to Clause 16, he feared employers would be called upon to take out two years policies, although he did not think that was the intention of the Government, but if a workman developed a disease which he had contracted in a previous employment, then the previous employer was liable under the Bill. If the provisions did not come into force until July, 1908, instead of July, 1907, so far as that was concerned such employers would have been, protected. As it was they would have to take out policies of insurance for that liability covering the two years. A new departure in this Bill was made in respect of those whose relations to their parents were not on a legal basis. Their position had for the first time been legally recognised. Whilst they appreciated the dreadful handicap such children had in life, and approved that addition to the Bill, yet when it came to admitting claims by the parents he thought that was going too far. He was not sure that it would make for public morality. It would be impossible for a measure to be put on the Statute-book of this country without its containing some regrettable things, and to some that provision was regrettable. Another thing was that old persons and cripples who were very seriously handicapped in their fight for a living, had not had in this Bill the consideration they ought to have received It would have been only reasonable if this Bill had allowed them to seek employment from employers who were relieved from the necessity of paying full compensation to them. Old men and cripples were far more exposed to accident than the able-bodied. By the exclusion of such a provision from this measure these persons would find it increasingly difficult to obtain employment, although many of them were quite skilled, industrious, and perfectly able to earn a good day's wage. The omission of such a pro-
  716
  vision would result in increasing numbers of these persons being thrown upon the rates instead of getting such employment as they were able to undertake. Apart from those considerations he congratulated the Government and the House upon the passing of a measure which would do much to lessen the sufferings and evils which would otherwise fall on the working people of this country.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was necessarily a source of great gratification to the Government to remark the harmony which characterised this debate. When they heard the late Home Secretary wishing the Bill God-speed, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress describing the Bill as one of the best industrial measures that Parliament had ever passed, and the unanimous expression of satisfaction with which the House had received this measure, it could not but be a source of gratification to his right hon. friend the Home Secretary and those who had assisted him. There had been some gentle criticisms from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in connection with the burden which would be thrown upon employers, but a point which had not yet been made was that, as against the small extra charge that the measure would throw on the employer, was to be reckoned the great benefit that would indirectly accrue to industry generally from any measure which helped to make more secure and stable the position of the workman. It was the insecurity of the workman's life that detracted largely from his capacity. Insecurity bred recklessness and insobriety. The fact ought to be borne in mind by this House that the more they safeguarded the workmen against the fear of destitution, whether from old age, from unemployment, or from incapacity due to accident, the more they raised his status, and the more they increased his value as a worker. A great part of this debate had turned upon the position of the outworker. For his part he regretted most deeply that it had not been found possible to bring the outworker within the scope of the Bill. The outworker, with his hard conditions, excessive hours, and wretched pay, was perhaps the most pathetic figure in the

  717
  whole industrial system. But the practical difficulties were insuperable. In the first place it was impossible to decide who was the employer, because, while a great majority of outworkers might as had been said, work for one employer, still there was of minority who took in work from different employers. The vista of litigation which this fact opened up as to whose employment the outworker was in when an accident happened was obvious enough, and the question would often be incapable of proof one way or the other. Who was to say, if a man cut his hand or a woman scalded her arm; whether the accident happened in the course of the employment or in the ordinary culinary operations of the household? And how was the employer to insure the outworker? No practical suggestion had been made by any of the critics as to the manner in which these difficulties could be overcome. To have brought the outworker within the scope of this Bill would have given the Government the greatest gratification, but the difficulties were insuperable. As to the question of industrial diseases there ought not to be such a thing as industrial disease, but until by the operation of science and of law we had rid our industrial system of those maladies which attach to it, employers ought to recoup financially the workers for injuries which they suffered owing to these maladies. With regard to the complaint of the late Home Secretary, he might point out that in the case of disease being contracted owing to continued infraction of rules it would be open to the employer to plead that the injury was due to serious and wilful misconduct. The hon. Member for Berwickshire said that every industrial disease ought to have been brought into that schedule. That question was debated for some hours a few days ago, but his hon. friend was in error if he thought the House was misled into the conclusion they had adopted on that occasion by any observation which he made.
  MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid the hon. Gentleman had misled his hon. Friend the Member for North West Ham.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the reference of the Industrial Diseases
  718
  I Committee was simply to inquire what diseases were suitable for inclusion in this Bill. They were not limited to any industry or trade. The hon. Member for North West Ham had asked whether they were investigating a particular disease due to the use of naphtha in indiarubber works, and he had answered that they were. His hon. friend had then said that it was not on the list of diseases which had been published, and he had replied that he thought it was. He had been mistaken in that, but the fact remained that the Committee had intended to inquire into that particular disease, among a large number of others. The list was a provisional list which was circulated among the trade unions and employers' associations, and it was circulated in order that those associations and trade unions might make suggestions as to other diseases which they thought ought to go into the schedule. On the question of diseases his hon. friend the Member for North Paddington had suggested that while there were certain diseases which were specific and should come within the scope of the Act the burden of disproof resting on the employer, there were many other diseases which were not so distinctly industrial, and in regard to which the burden of proof should be thrown on the workman.
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid his suggestion was that the second list of diseases should include all those which were not specific, and that in such cases the onus of proof should rest on the workman.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he understood his hon. friend's point. It was that there should be a list containing obvious trade diseases, and that the workman should be entitled to compensation unless the employer could prove that the disease was not due to his employment. With regard to other industrial diseases the hon. Member's suggestion was that the workman should only have the right to recover compensation if he could prove that any disease from which he suffered was due to his employment. His difficulty with regard to the latter proposal was that there were many complaints of which no one

  719
  could say whether they did or did not arise from the trade in which a person was engaged. In the case of an agricultural labourer, for example, it might be difficult to say whether rheumatism arose from exposure to weather or bad housing. In cases of that nature, and others which he had mentioned in the previous debate, if they tried to give effect to the proposal, there would be an infinite amount of litigation, and no Court would be able to decide with certainty whether the diseases arose from occupation or not. It was true that there were certain diseases which were in. some degree trade diseases, and in regard to these it might be advisable to have a separate schedule and to give the workman the right to claim and recover compensation when he could show that the disease, although not always specific to the employment, was in his case due to that employment. From the beginning of the debates the Government had always regarded the schedule as provisional and had recognised that there were many diseases that ought to be added to it as soon as inquiry had decided their nature and the trades to which they specifically belonged. In reply to the hon. Member for Montgomery, lascars would be in the same position as British sailors. He did not think that the apprehension of the hon. Member for Kildare as to the increase of County Court litigation was justified. The litigation which had taken place under the previous Act would he hoped be lessened by this Bill on account of the simplification of the procedure, and on account of the provision for the settlement of medical questions outside the Courts by the medical referees. He congratulated the House on the passage of a Bill of precisely the kind which this new House of Commons desired to pass for the direct benefit of the poorer class—a Bill which without imposing any undue burden on any shoulders would bring relief—and at the moments when it was most needed—to tens of thousands of necessitous homes.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman had not held out more hope in regard to the inclusion of outworkers and an extension of the diseases clause of
  720
  the Bill. Nobody sought to minimise the difficulty of bringing outworkers in, but if the Home Secretary was willing some way would be found of overcoming that difficulty. The chief difficulty seemed to be to determine whether the accident arose out of the employment or from some other cause. If an accident were met with and the workman felt he had a claim why should he be barred from going to Court and taking the risk? In all probability both these questions would be raised in the House of Lords and serious effort made to remedy what were admitted to be the two defects in this otherwise excellent measure. His suggestion to the Government was that if those questions were raised in the House of Lords they should not only put no obstacle in the way of trying to find a solution to them, but should co-operate with those who were seeking to make the Bill even more perfect than it was when it left the House of Commons. He trusted too that the suggestion made with regard to the inclusion of workmen suffering from dangerous diseases other than those contained in the schedule if they proved that their incapacity was due to their employment, should also be favourably considered. He wished again to urge the Government to co-operate in the House of Lords with those who would seek to bring outworkers and workers suffering from diseases not included in the schedule within the scope of the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES SCHWANNsuggested that means should be taken for publishing the provisions of this Bill among the workers in order that they might know the advantages they had. The hon. Gentleman had promised that the State offices would be used for advertising the Act. He suggested that a synopsis of the provisions of the Act should be exposed in every factory and workshop, and also that copies of the Act should be available for reference so that workers might know what the advantages were if an accident occurred. It had been said that trade union secretaries would point out the advantages to the members of the unions, but it should be remembered that a large number of workers did not belong to trade unions.
  MR. LUPTONsaid it would add to the value of the Bill if employers who made especially good arrangements for the health of their workers could receive certificates which would, according to their classification, he regarded by insurance offices as justifying a reduction of insurance rates.
  MR. HARWOODasked that when diseases were added to the schedule one should be put in for the benefit of Members of Parliament themselves. It arose from their occupation and might be called "brain rot." He admitted that it might be objected that if they had not already the germs of that disease they would not have come there at all.
  Me. T. F. RICHARDS:drew the attention of the Home Secretary to diseases which affected operatives in the boot and shoe trade—blood poisoning from the stain used and consumption from the dust caused by the rapid machinery used in dealing with chemically tanned leather. In his judgment there was no provision in the Bill for the protection of the workmen in the shoe-making industry suffering from blood poisoning. He wished to emphasise the remarks of the hon. Member for North Paddington so far as dust was concerned. In the boot and shoe industry they were accustomed to work with machinery which moved with extraordinary velocity whereby the leather was ground. The result was that the air was laden with dust. It should be remembered that whereas formerly it took seven years to tan leather, it could now be tanned in as many weeks, and the men who worked with the leather suffered from consumption to such an extent that the deaths amongst them were 38 per 10,000 above the average of ordinary trades. The medical officers of health in Northampton and Leicester had reported in 1905 that the Government should take the diseases arising from leather working into consideration. He therefore hoped that the Government would endeavour to widen the schedule so as to include those particular diseases, whether the persons afflicted by them were factory hands or outworkers.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY:moved the rejection of Clause 1, because he thought that the result of the clause would be not to correct an evil which was supposed to exist, but to create a greater evil than the Bill was supposed to remedy. Moreover he considered that the local education authority was not the proper authority to whom should be entrusted the carrying out of the measure if passed into law. Though there might be some foundation for the allegation that an evil existed, the evil had been greatly exaggerated; and he believed that it could be met by voluntary effort. He knew that that statement would not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for North Camberwell; but he thought he could prove his argument. If the Bill became law as it now stood it would take away from the parents all sense of responsibility for the care of their children, and would encourage improvident marriages. He pointed out that when the Bill came from the Select Committee only one meal was to be furnished, but it had been altered on the Report Stage to "meals." That was a proof that if it were once admitted on principle that the State should take care of the children in regard to meals, that principle would be extended. The safeguard introduced in another part of the Bill that the meals should be prepaid was altogether illusory. Free education having been conceded there would soon be a demand for free meals; and once a tart was made on the road to provide free meals for other people's children it would weaken the love of parents for their children and their sense of parental responsibility. The result would be that the parents would have more money in their pocket; and human nature being what it was they would become thriftless and extravagant. The extra money would be spent on selfish pleasure. In fact, the Bill would be a direct encouragement to drink, and

  723
  the money which had been gained not from their own exertions, but provided by the ratepayers, would go rather to the public-house than in any other direction. Of course he acknowledged that in some cases there were individual parents who under certain circumstances were unable to provide sufficient food for their children; but it had to be remembered that up to the present time there had been a fair amount of voluntary money to provide for those cases. The Report of the Select Committee went far to prove that the absolute want of food was really in many cases non-existent. The Committee said that the inadequate feeding of children in some large towns had forced itself into the consideration of people interested, but the evil was more or less spasmodic, and that on a general review of the evidence they thought that the cause of the evils was due to the social condition of the parents of these children, the lack of employment, thriftlessness, and an absence of parental responsibility. That was borne out by the evidence of Mr. J. Parr and Mr. Joseph Brown There was a general disposition in the House to regard the Poor Law guardians as not to be trusted, but in his opinion this Bill, if it became law, should be administered by the Poor Law guardians, who knew all the circumstances of each case, rather than the local education authority. He knew of cases in which people receiving£2 9s. 0d. were yet receiving this class of relief.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lough, Islington, W.):regretted to interrupt the right hon. Baronet, but wished to point out that no child would be fed under this clause.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that if he was out of order no doubt the Speaker would stop him. There was one case which was disclosed in the course of inquiry which showed that one family, the head of which earned £4 18s. a week, were receiving food and assistance at the expense of the ratepayers or voluntary effort. Mr. John Scott, the headmaster of a London County Council school at Bethnal Green, was asked if he considered the under-feeding of children a serious evil, and he replied that it was very small
  724
  indeed. Altogether it was quite trivial. He said that after investigation by himself and others. There had been a great deal of exaggeration as to the evils which this Bill proposed to remedy. It was not the want of food which was to be blamed but the neglect of the parent to supply suitable food and to supply washing in regard to clothes, etc., and to take other steps which led to cleanliness. It was unnecessary that the State should give the care of a parent to these children. The local education authority had to furnish the building and the apparatus, but they knew nothing about cooking or the feeding of children or the management of a canteen. Moreover, the teachers themselves had many of them intimated that they did not wish to be associated with the supply or administration of food at all. Therefore the local education authority would have to supply food and administer these canteens themselves. Under these circumstances he regretted that the Poor Law authority was not substituted for the local education authority, because then some of the evils which he had indicated would not ensue; but even if the authority was the Poor Law board it would not remove his objection to the clause, because he believed the principle of it was wrong. In London alone the provision, the cooking, and the service of the food would come to over £1,500,000 a year [cries of "No"]. That was the estimate of Mr. Shepheard, the Chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council, and hon. Members seemed to be innocent enough to anticipate that if the meals were provided the parents of children, would not take full advantage of them. Hon. Members did not understand human nature. If there was a good thing going the parents would see that their children got it, and at least £1,500,000 would have to be spent and the ratepayers would have to pay it. He brought forward this objection, as he wished to raise his voice against what he regarded as pure and undiluted Socialism.
  MR. BOWLESseconded, and said that this clause contained the principle of the whole Bill, and if it was knocked out there would very

  725
  little of the Bill left; he regarded both the Bill and the clause as extremely dangerous. Of course if they had a hungry child that child had got to be fed, and everybody agreed that the proper person to feed it was the parent. All must agree that where the parent failed to feed his child and carry out his moral obligation a moral obligation was imposed upon relatives to step in and help. Such a state of things constantly happened. If that failed the next thing was that some charitable institution, of which there were many, should step in and help. If the child's parents did not do their duty and there were no relatives or neighbours to step in, then he agreed that public charity in one form or another must necessarily be called in, and the only question was the form in which it should be applied, not only in the interest of the child but in the interest of the parent and of the public generally. It was a question of principle, and it was because this clause proceeded upon no principle at all or upon a highly mischievous principle that he had no hesitation in saying that it ought not to be put on the Statute Book. No excuse could be made for such a parent. If a man could afford to feed his children and yet allowed thorn to run the streets and go to school hungry he was a monstrous scoundrel. If he was in a state of destitution and could not feed his children, then it would be not only his right but his bounden duty to apply to the relieving officer of the district, who was bound to see that immediate relief was given. A parent might not like to apply to the relieving officer, and that dislike was profoundly honourable to the parents. But although he respected a parent who desired to try every possible plan before seeking relief in that way, he still said that a man who, in order to avoid coming on the rates, deliberately connived at the starvation of his children, for that was what it meant, was a man for whom nothing could be said. Every genuine case of a starving child therefore meant a cruel and negligent parent, and if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intended to grapple with this question in a real and satisfactory manner, it was to the cruel and neglectful parent, and not to the ratepayers, that he must go. The whole case for this clause rested on the
  726
  assumption that, so long as it was proved that the child was underfed, the conduct of the parent was a secondary matter. That was a detestable and abominable theory. This clause was fundamentally a mischievous clause which would do much harm, and it was because he was persuaded of that, that he felt constrained to take up the time of the House on this Amendment. There was no provision in our law to deal with starvation, because no man need starve in this country. Every man who starved failed in his duty to the country. There was complete machinery to deal with cases of destitution, and if the machinery worked ill then it should be amended. But it had not been proved that it did work ill; therefore let that machinery be used and let them not use novel and unusual machinery which would lead to infinitely greater evils than it sought to cure. It was because he looked at this matter very seriously, and because he thought this proposal might be seriously extended; that it held out that sure and certain promise, not merely to relieve those that were destitute, but to set up, under the cloak of relieving that most pathetic figure the hungry child, nothing less than a vast system of the State feeding of the children of the country, that he would support the Amendment if it went to a division.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out Clause 1."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'take,' in line 6, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHthought the hon. Baronet had unintentionally, misled the House as to the effect of the clause. The mover and seconder of its omission would readily admit that the great majority of the House did not agree with them. When this clause was read a second time the House unanimously agreed to the proposal and that there was an urgent need for the machinery that this clause provided. Under the clause no child could be fed at the cost of the taxpayers. All it did was to set up a different machinery. It was permissive in its operation, and no local authority need take advantage of it unless, there was the necessity.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON:deprecated his hon. friends going to a division on this clause. It effected, no doubt, a very great change in the Bill as it was read a second time, but he thought there was hardly a complete understanding as to the real meaning and value of the machinery provided. He took it they were agreed that a hungry child ought to be fed. Well the first person to feed it was the parent; if he failed then the voluntary agencies came in, and in the last resort there were the guardians of the poor. But in the meantime the child had to be fed. He entirely agreed with all that had been said as to the iniquity of the parent who could pay and would not, but it must be borne in mind that in the meantime the child must not go hungry. There was, it was true, certain machinery already existing, but the difficulty about the present voluntary agencies was that they were sporadic. They were scattered about and were not always in the right place at the right time. He wanted to bring these voluntary agencies and the local authorities, who could institute a system of medical inspection which ought to go hand in hand with a system of feeding, together. He wanted to bring these two sources of supply into harmonious working, so that they should avoid overlapping and ensure that the food should be given when and where it was wanted and not when and where it was not wanted. Where they did work together the system worked exceedingly well. There was no doubt that in some of these poor districts where parents gave their children money to buy food the children spent it on unwholesome food and acquired what doctors called a slum stomach—a taste for pickles, sweets, cigarettes, &C. By this provision such children could get wholesome food, and would also learn to behave at meals. Hungry and destitute children would also be fed. If the clause was properly worked a demand for public money would not arise, except for matters provided for in the clause. Voluntary agencies could provide a very considerable sum, and if there was local patriotism no doubt a local fund would be forthcoming. The number of children whose parents could not pay was comparatively small, so that there ought to be a considerable return to the societies. He felt very strongly the desirability of keeping the provision of food as far as possible
  728
  out of the hands of the local authorities. They had had quite enough of making the children, and the work in the schools, a counter in the political game, and he should be very sorry to see the question of their meals made a cry at municipal elections. Besides, a voluntary agency could do what a local authority could not. The unwholesome condition of the children did not arise so much from the want of meals as from eating unwholesome food, from insufficient fresh air in their living rooms, lack of cleanliness, and other causes. He was afraid the working classes were apt to think that most evils could be cured by legislation, the grant of public money, and the appointment of an inspector, but such things as he had mentioned could not be cured in this way. Legislation could not ensure that children were sent to bed in good time, that their rooms were properly ventilated or that attention was paid to cleanliness. This could only be done by those voluntary agencies which worked among the poor. It was the life of the poor, which needed improvement, and which could only be reached by means of voluntary agencies, and their association with the local authority would give point and emphasis to their work. In this way-many of our well-to-do and comparatively unoccupied fellow-countrymen would be able to learn something of the life of their poorer neighbours to help poor families over their difficulties and improve the health of their homes.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANhoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment to a division. The clause was by far the least objectionable in the Bill, and by itself, he thought, it would do an immense amount of good. There had been a great deal of evidence to show the large amount of indiscriminate charity there was in London, and the amount of harm it did. If it did nothing else, this clause would show, at any rate, how to organize that charity in a sensible way so as to make the money go as far as possible. His only objection to the clause was that it did not provide sufficient machinery. He believed it would be very much better if the local authority were given power to enforce upon school managers the duty of forming sub-committees who might also inquire into questions appertaining to the health of the children. he was sure that would

  729
  have been a simpler way, and he was sorry the committee was to be called a canteen committee and confined to work of this kind. He should not vote for the Amendment, but he felt that the clause might have been made more effective if it had been made an obligatory duty upon the managers to carry it out.
  Dr. MACNAMARAsaid the promoters of the Bill were very much obliged to the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken. There was no new principle in this clause. It was in existence in London and other large towns, although no doubt a keen auditor might bring the local authority to book for allowing buildings, furniture, and apparatus to be used. It was time hon. Members looked at the Bill and realised that not a farthing of public money could be spent in respect of the purchase of food under this clause. The whole thing was hedged round by safeguards against economic abuse, and when they came to the clause dealing with the recovery of the cost of meals he would do all he could to assist hon. Gentlemen. On this very clause, however, last week, after the late Parliamentary Secretary had accepted its principle, hon. Members opposite debated it for eight and a half hours, and it was carried by 128 votes to seventeen. After all the inquiries held on this subject and the evidence taken, it was going rather far to take such a long discussion about that which well-informed Members agreed contained no new principle. Notwithstanding all this, sixteen and a-half hours had been spent, 220 speeches made, and fifteen divisions taken on the Bill in Committee. After the long debate upon this subject they might at any rate as soon as possible get to the two principles which were the only principles in this Bill, and which, of course, the House was entitled to debate at any length.
  MR. HUNTsaid there was nothing in the clause about necessitous children, and therefore he was afraid it would be possible to spend the ratepayers' money on children whose parents were well able to feed them. It ought to be made quite clear that the ratepayers' money should not be used in such circumstances.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL:directed attention to the evidence of Mr. Shepheard before the Select Committee to allay the alarm felt by some hon. Members as to the effect of the Bill. Mr. Shepheard was asked—
  "You estimate that you can meet the necessities of the children with an outlay of about £45,000?"
  And the answer was—
  "That is our estimate. Then we hope and expect that present charitable funds will be continued. There is about £10,000 a year being expended in this direction through various charities, and I should hope this would come off the £45,000."
  Therefore, the £1,500,000 with which the House was startled dwindled down on examination to £35,000 a year. Remarks had been made about parental responsibility. The Committee reported as follows—
  "It has been often urged that the result of putting the duty on a public authority would undermine parental responsibility, but the Committee are forced to the conclusion that the present practice is by no means free from that danger."
  That was, he thought, a remarkable and a wise passage. He hoped contributions to charitable funds would continue, but by introducing a public authority the system was given a permanence, and he believed the public authority would watch carefully the action of parents in this matter. Alarmist statements had been made as to the effect this Bill would have, but the evidence could not have been carefully considered by those who made those statements. In deciding to feed her necessitous school children England was but following the example of all the other European nations.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out the words, "on which the authority are represented." He did not think there was any need for these words, and he thought they might be detrimental, because if the object of the promoters of the Bill was really to encourage voluntary effort that would not be achieved by putting on the committee representatives of the local education authority. If it were thought wise that the local education authority should be connected with the committee, arrangements could be made to meet together and consult as to the steps to be taken.
  MR. LANE-FOXseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words, 'on which the authority are represented."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHagreed that as much freedom as possible should be left to the local education authority in constituting these committees, but the hon. Baronet strained these words a little beyond their real meaning. The words in the clause were that the local education authority might associate with themselves any committee on which the authority were represented. In certain emergencies there might have to be an expenditure of public money, and as the work had to be carried on with great care, subject to the approval of the authorities, it was absolutely necessary that the authorities should be represented.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the hon. Gentleman had stated that there were certain cases in which that committee as constituted by section (a) would have to spend public money. Was that so"
  MR. LOUGH: If Clause 3 is adopted.
  LORD BALCARRESasked whether this committee, on which the local authority was to be represented, had no function besides that of actually selecting the food and paying the bill for it.
  MR. LOUGHsaid this committee would have to do more than buy food. They would have to see that the work was properly carried on.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LANE-FOX:moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division to provide that the meals supplied to children should be prepaid. This, he said, was an Amendment of considerable substance and well worthy of consideration because it
  732
  was strongly supported by the Report of the Select Committee and also in the various documents placed before that Committee. A Report was furnished to the Select Committee by the hon. Member for Chippenham in which he said that 10,000 children in Rome attending the schools took advantage of a daily meal and everyone paid a halfpenny punctually on arrival. It must be obvious that the system of prepayment if possible was most satisfactory, because it insured in the first instance that they were dealing with the genuine cases which this Bill was intended to meet. Another excellent effect of the Amendment would be that it would distinctly draw a line which would indicate where pauper relief began in connection with this matter. That was a question which divided hon. Members in dealing with this subject. The objection felt to the giving of meals at the expense of the rates to the children of parents who were able to pay would be removed. Were the Government prepared to give some reason for disagreeing with what apparently was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee? The Committee went thoroughly into the matter, and their opinion was greater than any other that could be cited.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. The only objection he could possibly see to it was that prepayment could not always be obtained if a child was waiting for a meal. That was not a sound objection, because there was a provision later in the Bill which met the case of necessitous children. It was evident that unless prepayment was got, the chances of recovering the money would be very small indeed. It would make the local education authority unpopular, and considerable expense would be entailed in recovering the money if the parents refused to pay. If the Amendment were adopted, all the legal machinery which would be required to recover the money would be avoided. A child might be supplied with meals contrary to the desire of the parent, who might be called upon to pay, although he had been absolutely ignorant of his child having had the food. He saw no good reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, provided that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that the wicked parent should pay and that he should not be allowed to escape his parental obligations with impunity.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 20, after the word "charged" to insert the words 'by prepayment."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid it was quite unnecessary for the mover and seconder of the Amendment to say a word in favour of prepayment. Anyone who was engaged in business preferred prepayment. The canteen committees would have to be worked in a business way, and nothing could be so desirable as to secure prepayment in every case. The hon. Member would ask why, while agreeing with him on that principle, he could not accept the Amendment. He would give a perfectly sound reason. A great many of the Amendments on the Paper sprang from the idea that they were setting up canteen committees. That was not what they were doing. They were laying down the constitution for the representative bodies who would afterwards have to make another constitution for the canteen committees who would carryout the work. They could not say in the Bill that there ought to be prepayment for meals, because there must be cases in which it would be impossible to observe that rule, however good it might be, if it were practicable. Reference had been made to the case of Rome. There was provision in the system adopted in Rome for dealing with hard cases. Although they accepted the principle of repayment they felt that the clause should be drawn so as to leave a wide discretion to the local authority.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that in Rome according to the Report laid on the Table of the House, if a child came to school obviously in want of food, the education authority bought a ticket from the feeding committee and gave the child a meal, making certain inquiries afterwards into the reasons why the parents had failed to provide the child with food. That system worked effectively in practice, and the children obtaining a meal without payment did not average more than 3 per cent. of those coming from the poorest districts. He need not say that he was glad the Government were following so good an example. In France there was what was known as the system of can-
  734
  teens where the children received meals. I The children brought a ticket, which was paid for sometimes by the parent, and sometimes by a charitable institution, but no one knew who had paid for the ticket.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he could not agree with his hon. friends in regard to the policy of the Government as to prepayment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education said that prepayment was eminently desirable, but that he did not want to put it into the Bill because it would interfere with the discretion of the local education authority. The Parliamentary Secretary had refused the Amendment on purely administrative grounds. The hon. Gentleman must be the judge on that point; but he hoped that in the Departmental Circular embodying instructions to the local education authorities laying down the views of the Department, the Minister in charge of the Bill would state that in his personal opinion prepayment, wherever possible, should be made.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HART-DAVIESmoved to insert in line 22, after the word "meal," "the expense attending the serving such meal." He would like to leave the local education authority as free as possible, but at the same time they should not only be relieved of the expense for the actual food supply, but of the cost of cooking and attendance.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that this Amendment meant much the same as one standing in his own name, to leave out of clause 2 the words "determined by the local education authority," and insert "sufficient to cover the full cost of providing, cooking, and serving that meal."
  MR. HART-DAVIESsaid that his object in moving his Amendment was to leave the matter rather vague.
  MR. CAVEseconded the Amendment. He had always understood that the words in the Bill included, not only the cost of food, but of getting the food ready.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In line 22, after the word 'meal,' to insert 'the expense attending the serving of such meal."—(Mr. Hart-Davies).
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the words of the Amendment had just the same force as he had tried to explain in regard to the other Amendment. The local education authority must be allowed to expend what they thought right in regard to preparing a meal. In the case of a small town, where it was thought necessary in connection with a public school to open a dining-room, the initial capital expenditure might amount to £15 or £20 a year. But during the first year the dining-room was opened perhaps not-more than a thousand meals would be provided, and only one penny could be charged for each, because otherwise the child would go home. If a charge was made to cover the whole expense it might amount to sixpence or sevenpence a meal; whereas, perhaps a year afterwards the dining-room would be crowded and the initial cost would be covered by a charge of a penny per meal. The difficulty of putting in words such as were suggested in the Amendment would hamper the local education authority, and he hoped that his hon. friend would not press it, because they must have a little confidence in the business tact of the local authority.
  MR. HART-DAVIESsaid he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FELL:moved an Amendment with the object of providing that the meals provided should not in cost exceed threepence. He thought it was desirable to limit the discretion of the local education authority. He had no doubt that some school canteen committees would be economical and supply the best possible meal at the least possible cost, but there might be school canteen committees who were extravagant, and it was impossible to say in such an event to what the cost of a meal might run. The parent was to be charged with the price of the meal, and the amount was to be recoverable from him, and he would know, if the Amendment were adopted, that under no circumstances could he be charged more than three-
  736
  pence. He thought his proposal would help all parties—the education authority, the canteen committee, and the parent, and he considered that the authorities should be guided in some way by a maximum sum being indicated. He did not anticipate that the cost of the meal would, in every case, reach the maximum, but there ought to be one beyond which the charge should not go.
  Amendment not seconded.
  *MR. CAVE:moved an Amendment to insert words which would lay it down that the amount charged for the meal should not be less than the estimated cost to the authority of providing, preparing, and serving it. He said the Bill gave no guidance as to the principle upon which the local authority should fix the sum to be charged for the meal, and there was nothing to prevent them from providing a meal which cost twopence halfpenny and charging a halfpenny or a farthing, so that they could in substance provide free meals, although making a small nominal charge. They were told that this was not intended, and that no public funds would be applied to the provision of meals under this Bill except in either cases under Clause 3, or where the parent was unable, through no fault of his own, to pay for the meal.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that no public funds would be available for food, but they would be available for machinery.
  *MR. CAVEsaid that this was the first time he had heard that admitted, but he wished to point out that unless the parent was unable to pay for the meal he ought to be made liable for the cost of it, and some words defining his liability should be inserted. He thought the best way was that the local education authority should fairly estimate the cost of the meal and charge what it cost them. He did not mean to include the capital charges in regard to the buildings and apparatus but merely the estimated cost of providing and serving the meal, his object being to make the whole thing self-supporting in regard to those children whose parents could pay. In the case of necessitous children no provision was made that the cost of the meals could be recovered from any other

  737
  source, and therefore it must come out of the education rate.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities) seconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'amount,' to insert the words '(not being less than the estimated cost to the authority of providing, preparing and serving such meal.)"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he heartily appreciated the courteous and sympathetic words in which the Amendment had been moved, but thought it would be unworkable, and would defeat the object with which it was proposed. It would be exceedingly difficult to estimate the cost, and it would work out perhaps to fractions of a farthing. There must be a round sum, and, as in any business, the loss on one day would be recovered on another. The cost must vary according to the number of children, so that if the Amendment were adopted in a large school it would be much less than in a small school, putting an impossible burden on an auditor. Did the hon. Member say that there was no alternative between an absolutely free meal and one for which the full cost was paid? At present they could get half the money for the meal from the child, and if these words were put in the local authorities would be precluded from taking what might be obtained for a meal. He could not believe the hon. Gentleman intended to do that. But this was one of the practical difficulties that arose with regard to a financial rule of that character. If, again, they asked for a prepayment it must be based upon au estimate and these qualifying words would not got rid of that difficulty. He could not accept the Amendment.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. He congratulated him with having expounded his views with a little more lucidity than he did a few days ago, and was grateful to him for having given his reasons, because this was a question the Committee did not fully understand when it was last discussed. There seemed to be an impression that this
  738
  clause dealt with necessitous children, but it only dealt with children from whom the money could be recovered. It was only when they came to Clause 3 that they commenced to deal with necessitous children. The hon. Member for St. Helens, on the previous occasion, spoke upon this clause under the total misapprehension that it was to do with free meals for necessitous children. The intention of the clause was in the opposite direction. It was to see that the local authority should not be the loser by giving meals to children, whose parents could afford to pay, merely for the sake of convenience. And that was the Amendment of his hon. friend. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill said the Amendment was unworkable for three reasons. First he said it was impossible to ascertain the cost and whether a profit was being made on a particular meal or not. But a very little experience would enable the local authority to get out of that difficulty. It was perfectly easy to get an estimate of the cost, and that was all that was involved in this Amendment. Then it was said it would necessitate dealing in small fractions. The Amendment did not do that. It simply said there should be no loss. And with regard to the contention that it could not be estimated without going into small fractions, he pointed out that it was not necessary to estimate the cost to a farthing, and if it was estimated at a farthing too much the people who wanted their children to have a meal merely for the sake of convenience were perfectly well able to pay the extra farthing. That would also help the local authority to feed those who could not afford to pay. It was lastly contended that the Amendment would defeat its own object by preventing the local authority receiving part payment or pro-payment. If the cost was estimated he could not see how the Amendment prevented pre-payment, and with regard to part payment the hon. Gentleman had himself made that perfectly safe. If the parents were able to pay part, the voluntary associations would pay the rest, and the part that they paid would go to the local authorities. The Amendment left it open to the local authorities to take part payment of the actual cost of the meal to recoup themselves, yet the hon. Gentleman wished the House to oppose the Amendment. Did

  739
  he wish the local authority to be a loser when there was no need, or to saddle the rate with more than was necessary, or to make it easy for people able to pay to get a meal for 1d. which cost 2d.? There was no difficulty in this Amendment; it would be easy to administer it if the hon. Gentleman would accept it. He had not been lavish in the concessions he had made, and he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had been rather influenced in that by the fact that so few hon. Members had been present in opposition to discuss the matter. But although only seventeen or eighteen voted in the lobby on Friday it must be borne in mind that they reduced the Government majority to a lower point than almost any before, and he was convinced that many supporters of the Government stayed away in order to avoid the predicament in which they would have been placed in having to oppose the hon. Gentleman.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)said it was desirable to keep the various issues quite apart in dealing with this matter. He was astonished to hear the mover of the Amendment say that the principle that the price fixed by the local authority for a meal supplied should not cover the cost of the "machinery" as well as the cost of the food, was new to the House. There was a great weight of authority behind that principle. The Scottish Royal Commission, two Departmental Committees, and the Select Committee had suggested that the cost of the machinery should fall on the local authority and the cost of the materials upon the parents or the voluntary agencies. They had only to refer to the Scottish Commission to find the opinion expressed that in many cases it would be of inestimable advantage if these meals could be supplied, and that the cost of preparing them should be part of the school service. Another circumstance that had been lost sight of was the educational value of a meal supplied under these circumstances. The Report of the Medical Inspector of the Lancet who had recently visited the Indian schools, said it was there recognised that the instruction that could be given at meal times was as necessary as the education given in the schools. He urged the House not to forget the educational value of these meals and contended that experience in London
  740
  proved that 75 or 80 per cent. of the cost might be recovered from the parents.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONappealed to the Government not to accept this Amendment. In the first place he was a little suspicious that there was a desire to-night not to trust the local authority. If there was one argument more than another used on the Select Committee it was that they should trust the local authority. Those who had been the keenest upon that argument were now the most ready to depart from it. The parent must pay the full estimated cost of the meal, the only alternative being that the child must become a necessitous child. There was no middle course. The proper way to meet the difficulty was to leave more elasticity to the local authority. The local authority might have within its area a district where the better class working men and the middle class resided, and they might be prepared to pay a little more than the bare cost for convenience sake, and in those cases a profit would be made. Another part of the same area might be a poor working class neighbourhood where a number of unskilled labourers resided, and they might not be in a position to pay the full cost of the meals provided for their children. Surely they might leave it to the discretion of the local authority to charge more in the former case and less in the latter, according to the circumstances. If the local authority did not make the whole transaction pay, where would the money come from?
  MR. HAROLD COX: From the rates.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that no public funds were provided. There was no power under this Bill connected with the school canteen system for the rates to be drawn upon in the event of the local authority failing to make this first part of the business pay. But they were not now dealing with necessitous cases. From the arguments which had been advanced he should have thought the reduction of the number of necessitous eases ought to be the chief aim of the hon. Member for Preston than whom no man had done more to prevent this Bill from

  741
  passing into law. They ought to leave the local authority absolutely free in this matter. For these reasons he sincerely hoped that this Amendment would not be pressed, because it would defeat the object the measure had in view, and it would drive many of the children into a category out of which they ought to do their best to keep them.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the hon. Member for Barnard Castle did not appear quite to understand the Amendment. The cost of the food had to be found by voluntary agencies, whilst the cost of its preparation and service had to be provided by the ratepayer, who would not be consulted in the matter at all, and the purpose of this Amendment was to secure that the amount repaid by the parents should go to meet the charge imposed on the ratepayer.
  *MR. HAROLD COX:maintained that parents who liked the convenience of their children dining at school ought to pay for chat convenience. These parents had no right to compel the ratepayers to pay for the convenience they secured. It had been said that the matter could be settled by leaving it to the local authority. They had had experience of the manner in which local authorities had acted. In the case of London, the London County Council was the local education authority, and when the education of London was handed over to them there were a number of schools in which fees were willingly paid. Those fees brought in a revenue of £20,000 a year, but the London County Council, wantonly abolished them. That council apparently thought that it was more democratic to compel the ratepayer to pay for other people's children than to permit the parent to pay for his own children. If this clause passed it would authorise the London County Council to sot up a system of restaurants all over London at the cost of the ratepayers. We wanted better education in this country, more teachers, and higher salaries for the teachers, but we could not get any of these things if the rate-payers were to be plundered for things
  742
  that parents really did not want. he therefore hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. GWYNXthought the object of this Bill was being misrepresented by the Opposition. There were two principal objects, one of which was primary and the other only secondary. In London and in England generally they had enacted that all children must go to school. The question was whether the children should be forced to go to school in a starving condition. If that was not the wish of hon. Members they would have to provide meals for a certain number of the children. It was in the interests of the ratepayers as well as in the interests of education generally that meals should be provided for necessitous children. The Amendment under consideration raised the question whether other children should be allowed to profit by the existence of the machinery which would be provided under this Bill. It also suggested that a charge should be made which would cover not only the food supplied but also the capital value of the building, machinery, and attendance. It appeared to him that the House was being asked to put the cost of the whole business upon a section of the community.
  MR. LOUGHmade an appeal to the Committee to decide this point.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would recognise that they had been very moderate in their opposition to it. [Cries of "Divide,"] Hon. Members below the gangway who were so impatient made statements which would give a false impression in the country and the House, and therefore it was necessary to deal with them. The one argument appeared to be that the necessitous child should have his meal free, but this Amendment did not touch that point; it provided only that a charge should be made for the cost of the meal to a particular child. The charge would not cover the cost of the building and the providing and serving of the meal.
  Question put
  The House divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 251. (Division List No. 495.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bertram, Julius

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Younger, George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cave and Mr. Harold Cox.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jenkins, J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Joyce,.Michael

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Erskine, David C.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barnard, E. B.

  Essex, R. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Benn,Sir J. Williams (Devonport

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Maurice

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Billson, Alfred

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Boland, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Gilhooly, James

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

  Brace, William

  Ginnell, L.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Glover, Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Branch, James

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macpherson. J. T.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gulland, John W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Crae, George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Kean, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Laren,,Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Laren,H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harrington, Timothy

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harwood, George

  Marnham, F. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Massie, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras,W.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murnaghan, George

  Crean, Eugene

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murphy, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Crombie, John William

  Hogan, Michael

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crooks, William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Doberty, Philip

  Russell, T. W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Sears, J. E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  O'Malley, William

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wedgwood, Josiah. C.

  O'Mara, James

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitbread, Howard

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Paul, Herbert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Snowden, P.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Williams, J (Glamorgan)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenoel)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rees, J. D.

  Stewart-Smith, D. Kendal)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robert, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E).

  Robertson, Sir G, Scott (Bradf'rd

  Thorne, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, George

  Robinson, S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Roche, Augstine (Cork)

  Verney, F. W.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the word such."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment to provide that a parent should receive a statement of account for every meal furnished to his child "within a period to be prescribed by the local education authority." He thought this Amendment was absolutely necessary if justice was to be done to the parents in this matter. The clause gave the local education authority enormous powers in regard to the recovery of the cost of meals, and it seemed to him reasonable that a parent should know within what time he was expected to pay before proceedings would be taken against him. He supposed that an account would have to be rendered to every parent, and he suggested that the account should state the time after which the powers of the local education authority to recover payment would begin to run. This was one of the many gaps in the machinery of the Bill, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the Secretary to the Board of Education who had not been very lavish in concessions to Members of the Opposition.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. It was a reasonable proposal, because it only gave the parent a chance of knowing what he had to pay within a prescribed period. A parent might not know that meals were supplied to his child, but he was to be liable for the charge, even though he was in ignorance of what had been done. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that they must leave all these things to the local authorities, but different local authorities would probably make different rules on this extremely important point. He appealed to the good sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite in order that some rule might be laid down ensuring that there should be some uniformity in the regulations made by different authorities. He hoped that he had made himself clear, and having gone so far to give elasticity to the local education authority, he invited the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 23, after the word 'parent,' to insert the words 'within a period to be prescribed by the local education authority and set forth by them on the statement of account."—(Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill,"
  MR. LOUGHsaid he gladly recognised the spirit in which the Amendment had been moved. The hon. Member had said that there were many gaps in the machinery by which the Bill was to be carried into effect; but it was the business of the local education authority to fill in these gaps. The hon. Baronet had suggested that at the foot of the accounts sent to the parents it should be stated that if payment was not made in seven days the matter would be put into the hands of the solicitor of the local education authority. He thought that it would be ridiculous to make such a claim, and to put it into the Bill; and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that this clause went beyond machinery, for it empowered every local education authority throughout the country to supply meals to the children, and laid the duty on that authority to recover payment for them. He thought that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see that the clause would impose a very grave injustice on some parents. He wished to move an Amendment to provide that the parents should not be forced to pay unless the meal had been supplied to his child with his authority or consent.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 2, after the word 'amount' to insert the words, 'or that the meal has been furnished without his authority and consent."—(Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a broad principle was involved in the clause; in I fact it embodied the most definite principle in the Bill. The intention of the Bill was to enforce the duty of the parent to send his child to school properly fed and fit to receive instruction; and this clause had its root in the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell that he objected to the children being scarified. He could not accept the Amendment.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that this was a question purely of administra-
  748
  tion, and he hoped the Government would not allow the clause to pass without further consideration. He himself wanted the clause to work satisfactorily in regard to parents and children who were not necessitous. It seemed to him that such parents ought at least have some notice where a charge was to be made for the meals. He was sincerely anxious that the Bill should go to another place without any gap in it.
  *MR. HERBERTsaid he hoped the Government would give serious attention to this Amendment which seemed to him to be perfectly reasonable The clause did not deal entirely with necessitous children, nor with neglectful parents, and it might happen that a parent who did his duty by his children might provide them with money to get dinner day by clay, and the child might spend that money on sweets or cigarettes and, having no dinner otherwise, might be provided with dinner at school. Then, at an indefinite period afterwards, the local authority would send in a bill for meals of which the parent had no knowledge. That he thought would be a monstrous proceeding, and therefore there ought to be an obligation, upon the local authority to give notice at once of what they were doing to both the neglectful parent and the good parent.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had no doubt the same object in view as they had, but he had failed to grasp the point under discussion. The hon. Gentleman had said that where the parent did not provide his child with sufficent food, the object of the clause was to scarify the parent. The Amendment of his hon. friend was not to prevent the scarifying of the parent, who showed cruelty to his z J, but to protect him in doing his u. / If a parent gave his child a sufficient breakfast, and the child went down to school and found a very excellent breakfast for the other children being provided by the local education authority, he might be tempted to take a second breakfast. That was a very likely thing to occur. If the parent exercised cruelty towards his child a cheaper remedy than that proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be to invoke the intervention

  749
  of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. [Cries of "Divide."] By this Bill they were carrying legislation further than it had ever been carried before, and at all events hon. Members should put themselves to a little inconvenience to see that the provisions of the Bill were such that they could be administered without difficulty.
  *DR. MACNAMARAsaid his hon. friend had stated that they were passing a Bill the like of which they had never passed before. Quite true. And they ought to have done it long ago. What would happen under this clause? The local education authority gave a meal and it was to be given freely under the Bill unless one of two things happened; either the local education authority were to be satisfied that owing to the necessitous character of the area, funds other than public funds were not available or were insufficient in amount to defray the cost of meals, or that the parent was unable to pay. Now it was desired to insert another provision under which the parent should come forward and say that the meal was given to his child without his authority. Did not hon. Members who supported this proposal see that they were defeating their own object, because thriftless parents would always come forward and say that. They were giving them indeed the best excuse not to pay. A more stupid Amendment he could not remember.
  *MR. CAVEappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment and was sure that he did not quite see what the effect of it was. Take the case of a man who was well able to pay for his child's food, but for selfish reasons refused either to give his child a proper meal at home or to consent to its being properly fed at school. In such a case the school authority out of humanity would have to give a meal to that child but would be unable, if this Amendment were carried, to recover from the father the twopence which it cost. He would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'represents,' and insert the words 'may be determined by the authority to represent."
  "In page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert the words 'less a reasonable deduction in respect of the expenses of recovering the same."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out Clause 3. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had admitted that there were gaps in it. Clause 3 as it was at present drawn constituted a very big gap, and he proposed to fill it up by omitting the clause altogether. This clause provided that the local education authority might raise an amount not exceeding one halfpenny in the pound in order to provide food for the children. This was not the clause which invited the local authority to cooperate with any voluntary authority, or to provide any other machinery of a voluntary character. It was a clause simply to enable the local authority to levy a halfpenny rate for the purpose of providing food. He thought that this was an extremely bad clause and that the result of it would be that the local education authority would be empowered to provide food for the children which the parents of the child ought to provide themselves. All these provisions for affording certain meals or education to children at less than the actual cost had always been safeguarded by anxiously thought out provisions to the effect that there should be a limit put in the Bill. But in how many cases had that limit been maintained? If safeguards or limit of the rate were not put into this Bill what would be the result at the next election of any local education authority? In nine cases out of ten in the case of an election for the county council or the local education authority the cry would be "Vote for Smith and free meals for children." The result would be that the candidate who was prepared to give free meals to children would be returned. [Loud cries of "No."] Well, he was not quite so sure about that, and he thought it was for that very reason that there were so few hon. Members who were contesting the passage of this Bill. It was because they were afraid of the consequences that they were supporting it. Personally, he was not afraid of the use of any public money for this purpose whether it was the money of the State or from the rates, but if hon. Members

  751
  would have the courage of their opinion and say that they believed it was necessary for the lives of those people who were going to inhabit this country that they should be properly fed and educated at the cost of the State he should say he did not agree with them, but he admired their courage. When, however, they came down and said that there were going to be certain safeguards in regard to such a policy, and that only a certain amount was going to be spent upon a certain number of necessitous children, he had to ask the question "What would happen if there were more necessitous children than the halfpenny rate would provide for?"
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 9, to leave out Clause 3."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'resolve,' in line 9, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGH:recognised the good example which the hon. Member had set by moving his Amendment very briefly, and said he would imitate him in his reply. He would like to remove certain misconceptions which appeared to prevail. Everything that was inserted in Clauses 1 and 2 would apply to Clause 3, which would be covered by the provisions of the earlier clauses. The hon. Member seemed to think that a popular cry at an election would be "Vote for Smith and free meals." But he did not think so. He thought it would be a most unpopular thing for anybody to advocate increased taxation at the present time.
  They had had enough of that, and he thought the people were in favour of economy. He thought what they wanted to do could be done without the clause being in the Bill at all, but on the whole he considered it was safer to insert these provisions. The clause was surrounded with safeguards, in fact with every safeguard which they could devise.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that with his hon. friend he felt very strongly that this clause carried certain dangers, but he would urge him not to go to a division. They had accepted the proposal that children who were absolutely in want and could not get the full advantage of the system of education provided, should in some form or another be provided with meals. It might be proper that the locality should raise a limited sum for this purpose, but what they had to consider was not the application of the clause in particular, but the safeguards which were put upon the local education authority in spending the ratepayers' money in providing meals for children whose parents could pay. Under the circumstances, although he was not altogether satisfied that the safeguards were sufficient and would press one or two Amendments on the Parliamentary Secretary later, he thought this Bill was one of which they had accepted the principle and therefore should not press this Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 15. (Division List No. 496.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Benn, W (T'w'r H'mlets,S. Geo.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Billson, Alfred

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Boland, John

  Clough, William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Brace, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Barnard, E. B.

  Branch, James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brigg, John

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cowan, W. H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crean, Eugene

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Benn, SirJ. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Crombie, John William

  Crooks, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robinson, S.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lough, Thomas

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lundon, W.

  Sears, J. E.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Shackleton, David James

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk B'ghs.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sileock, Thomas Ball

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool Walton)

  Ferguson, B. C. Munro

  M'Crae, George

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Snowden, P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gilhooly, James

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

  Gill, A. H.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Ginnell, L.

  Massie, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Glover, Thomas

  Meagher, Michael

  Summerbell, T.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gulland, John W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Murnaghan, George

  Thorne, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Murphy, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Nicholls, George

  Toulmin, George

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harrington, Timothy

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Verney, F. W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walters, John Tudor

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Grady, J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Hare, Patrick

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Malley, William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  O'Mara, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whitehead, Rowland)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Paul, Herbert

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Hogan, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staff, Leek)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hudson, Walter

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rees, J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Kelley, George D.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Ridsdale, E.

  754

  755

  NOES.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess Of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Craik, SIR Henry

  Lane-Foz, G. R.

  Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Starkey, John R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Valentia Viscount

  MR. LANE-FOXmoved an Amendment with the object of limiting the operation of the clause to children in town areas. He could certainly claim to have a distinct mandate for this Amendment, for every single rural district council in his constitutency had petitioned him to oppose the clause. There was a good deal to be said for this Amendment, because the evil which this Bill was intended to cure had not arisen in rural districts. The rural councils distinctly objected to the machinery of this Bill being brought in. They objected to overlapping, and he thought their argument was sound. He did not think they ought to disestablish the existing authorities by a side wind, because in the urban districts there might be a problem which did not exist in rural districts. He appealed to hon. Members to be careful before they adopted a clause which might be necessary to the urban districts, but in the rural districts would have the effect of drying up the voluntary agencies which existed, and went far to mitigate the evil. In Hull this relief was carried on effectively at a cost of £900 a year, £300 of which was provided by two brothers, Mr. Wilson and Lord Nunburnholme.
  MR. BOWLESseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'authority' to insert the words 'in an urban area."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHagreed that there was little demand for the Bill in rural districts. But the Bill was permissive, and it need not be put into operation if not required. The County Councils Association passed a resolution that so long as the Bill was permissive they had no objection to it. There might be individual parishes in which crises might occur, and it would be well to have
  machinery to cope with its existence. If all went well in rural districts then the Act would never be put into operation.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the argument which had been put forward that the clause was inserted to meet the case of a crisis was absolutely worthless. In a rural parish with a rateable value of £2,000 a ½d. rate would raise about £4, and with five meals a week at 2d. each, a ½d. rate would only feed five children for twenty weeks.
  MR. S. COLLINSsaid that those who had spoken on behalf of the Opposition had constantly expressed themselves in entire sympathy with the objects of this Bill. He found upon looking at the numerous Amendments which had been put on the, Paper, that the Bill contained eight clauses, and hon. Members above the gangway were opposing five clauses out of the eight.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
  MR. ROGERShoped the Government would not accept this Amendment. One of the strongest arguments against it was that they had not got in the rural districts the voluntary agencies which they had in the towns. He had some knowledge of a local authority which had no less than 350 schools under its control, and he did not believe that in one of those schools they received any voluntary assistance at all. He was sure that if they accepted an Amendment of this kind they would do a very great injustice to rural districts. The agricultural labourers were amongt the worst paid of industrial workers, and consequently there was sure to be a certain number of very poor children, and in order to deal with them it was very desirable that the local authority should have the power which this clause provided. He was not so sure that the last words of this clause were at all wise, and if the

  757
  right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could see his way to make this a charge on the general county rate instead of upon the parish concern it would very materially assist the poor parishes.
  MR. LANE FOXasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved an Amendment requiring the local authority to furnish to the Board of Education a report by a medical inspector in making application for power to spend money out of the rates for food, such report certifying that there were children within their area unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them. He thought it was desirable that the Board of Education, which would have thrown upon it the responsibility of deciding whether this rate should be levied or not, should have the material facts before it for determining whether there was real need for such a step. It was not sufficient that the local authority should simply say that some of the children were underfed. It would be impossible for the Board of Education to make special inquiries in every locality, and it was not desirable that such a heavy strain should be placed upon the officials of the Board of Education. To avoid this he thought the local authority should be instructed to supply the Board of Education with such facts as would enable them to make an order at once. He thought the Board of Education ought to have some assurance from a medical authority that there were children unable to profit by the instruction offered because they were underfed and because no funds were available for the provision of meals. The information supplied by the local inspector would be sufficient for the Board of Education to act upon if they were satisfied that no voluntary agencies existed. He asked the House to give this Amendment serious consideration because it would relieve the Board of Education of a very serious responsibility and would give a great stimulus to the appointment of medical inspectors.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 9, after the word, 'authority,' to insert, the words 'after receiving the
  758
  report of a medical inspection."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHregretted he could not accept this Amendment as it might prove a formidable barrier to the operation of the clause. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that it was undoubtedly in the power of the local education authorities to have a medical inspection. He doubted that, and, at any rate, he was not sure that the local authorities would exercise the power. The Education Bill was not yet passed and there was no means of ensuring that there should be medical inspection.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLwas sorry the Amendment had not been accepted. The medical inspection of children had been adopted in Manchester and many of the great towns. He did not think they could leave entirely out of view the opinion expressed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament within the last few weeks. A clause had been adopted in the Education Bill which made it the duty of the local education authority to provide for the medical inspection of children before or at the time of their admission to a public elementary school.
  Dr. MACNAMARAsuggested that the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University should use his influence with his friends in the House of Lords to pass the Education Bill. He would then have his medical inspection.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the Report of the Departmental Committee stated that a definite system of medical inspection had been established in a large number of school areas. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not have read the Report. In view of the statement it contained the hon. Gentleman's reply was absurd.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 12, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'have ascertained that."
  "In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word such."
  "In page 2, line 14, after the word 'meals,' to insert the words 'provided under this Act."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY:moved an Amendment requiring the consent of the local board of guardians before the Board of Education authorises expenditure out of the rates for the provision of food for necessitous children. The guardians were conversant with relief work; the education authority were not. The guardians were able to ascertain whether or not people were necessitous, but the local education authority had no machinery for doing that work. He thought the Amendment would go far to carry out the object which the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had in view, namely, that only necessitous people should be fed out of public funds.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 15, after the second 'Board,' to insert the words 'subject to the consent of the local board of guardians."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid this had already been fully discussed, and for reasons given he could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved to insert after "rate" the words "during such period of time as the Board may direct." It was not desirable that because there occurred a period of distress the local authority should have the right to levy a permanent rate. He felt sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would see the necessity of imposing some limit of time for the duration of this privilege unless he wished to produce the result that the local authority should have the right to levy a permanent halfpenny rate instead of only in a temporary period of distress.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 17, after the words 'out of the rates,' to insert the words 'during
  760
  such a period of time as the Board may direct."—(Sir William Anson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the Government had given very careful consideration to this Amendment, but they had come to the conclusion that it was unnecessary. The provisions of the clause were very elastic. The local authority would apply to the Board, and the Board might authorise such expenditure as was considered necessary; it was not a question of a continual rate of a halfpenny. The object the hon. Baronet had in view would be secured by the Interpretation Act, 1899, in which it was provided that the board, unless an Act expressly ordered otherwise, could withraw an order.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked who was to call the attention of the Board to the fact that a halfpenny rate was not necessary?
  Mr LOUGHsaid that that might be done in many ways. A question might be asked and it would be fully considered.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HUNT:moved an Amendment to insert after the word "sum," the words "for necessitous children only." He wanted to make it quite clear that the rates should only be used for necessitous children.
  MR. BOWLESseconded the Amendment. He had an Amendment on the Paper which raised the same point in other form. The point was of great importance. They had been told over and over again by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that they need lot alarm themselves as to the effect of this Bill, because in the vast majority of cases the meals would be paid for, and that the rates would only be used in very exceptional circumstances, and only in any case where the child was necessitous and the parents were unable to pay for the meals. This Amendment had the effect of carrying out those repeated assurances. The question was whether such victuals

  761
  as were paid for out; of the rates were to be given to necessitous children or to the children generally. He hoped they would receive an explicit answer from the Government on that point.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 16, after the word 'sum,' to insert the words 'for necessitous children only."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the object of the Amendment came very near to another which had been discussed an hour before. The restrictions in the Amendment differed from those in the Bill in regard to the use of the money which might be raised from the rates. The hon. Gentleman said that that money should not be used except for necessitous children. They must stick to the provisions and the restrictions which they had put into the Bill, and, as he had pointed out before, this clause must be interpreted in connection with Clauses 2 and 1 and could not be separated from them. It was an integral part of the Bill, but it could not be used without falling back upon Clauses 1 and 2. The safeguards which were provided were that there should be no charge upon the rates unless the parent said that he was unable to pay. That was the one broad restriction imposed by the Bill. Another restriction was that the local authority should pass a resolution to the effect that some of the children in the district could not take advantage of the system of education provided for them unless they were provided with food. Those were the safeguards which were imposed, and they were the best they could invent, and whatever hon. Gentleman might think of them they must stick to them.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that whatever difficulties there were in regard to the consideration of this clause the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had brought upon himself by accepting an Amendment to the clause. As the clause originally stood it referred to necessitous areas, and in regard to them the whole area was to provide a halfpenny rate. But the Amendment
  762
  accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary altered the clause materially, and it no longer dealt alone with the necessitous area, but with individual children who were alleged to be underfed. He was bound to say that after the way in which his Amendment, limiting to some period of time the operation of this clause had been dealt with, they were bound to look very carefully upon the necessary limitations to be imposed in regard to the operation of the clause. It was not the area which it was important to consider but the children. A local education authority might find that certain of the children attending the elementary schools were unable from lack of food to take advantage of the educational facilities which were supplied in those schools. The schools were unable to find money for the purpose of the provision of meals, and they had to go to the local education authority and ask for an order under which they might provide those meals. As the Bill at present stood that order might run for all time in that particular area. Under those circumstances he thought they should have to press this Amendment on the Government in order to insure that the benefits of the clause were not applied to purposes for which they were never intended, and that the children whom it was intended to benefit should receive all that they were entitled to. He urged the Government to accept the Amendment which would make it impossible so far to alter the character of the schools as to enable this halfpenny rate to be shared in by people who were perfectly well able to pay for the feeding of their own children.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he did not wish to pledge himself to the words of the Amendment. In fact he preferred words which appeared later on the Paper and which were intended to produce the same result as this Amendment. But he was strongly in favour of the principle of this Amendment. Let them take the case of an area of an ordinary character where there were two or three children who were necessitous but no funds other than public funds were available for feeding such children. In such a case the clause as it stood appeared to empower the education authority to apply to the Board of Education for an order which would justify the authority in

  763
  providing food out of the rates, not only for the few necessitous children, but for all the children in the education area. Was it the desire of the House that in a case where there were only two or three poor children the whole of Clause 3 should be brought into operation and the cost of the food for children in the whole of the area paid for out of the rates?
  MR. LOUGH: The hon. Member forgets Clause 2.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he had not forgotten Clause 2, and he was going on to refer to it. He was obliged for the interruption because it enabled him to deal with the question. As he understood it, what that clause meant was that the authority could charge the parent of a child who was able to pay a price for the meal.
  MR. LOUGH: They must charge the parent with the price of the meal.
  *MR. CAVEsaid he agreed that they must charge for the meals, but they need not charge the cost of the meal. They were only bound to make some charge, and the amount charged might be only a fraction of the cost. That strengthened the argument in favour of the principle of this Amendment. It had been suggested that power could not be given to an authority to raise a rate to feed a few poor children. But that was the Paris system, where the parents who were able to pay paid, and the children whose prrents wera unable to pay got tickets which enabled them to get the meal. He had not made this speech in any spirit of interfering with the passing of the Bill, but he felt that a case in which there were only two or three children to be fed should receive further consideration.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was very much obliged to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, because he had given him a fair indication of what he meant was safeguarded by it. He understood that one of the safeguards was that the cost of the provision of meals should be recovered from those parents who could pay, and that those who could not pay should receive the price of the meal out of the public
  764
  funds. That was an important admission, because up to the present the hon. Member had always stated that he was not going to apply this provision to all children. Now, however, the hon. Member clearly stated that meals were to be provided for all children. In other words, every child in the school was to be provided with a meal which was to be paid for out of public funds unless its parents could pay. The ratepayers would have to provide for the rest. The sum would have to come out of the rates. [Cries of "No."] If that was not so, surely there was no sense in not accepting the Amendment, because they all understood that it was really the desire of hon. Members opposite to provide meals for everybody, to recover the amount of those meals if they could, and if they could not to let it fall upon the rates.
  *DR. MACNAMARApointed out that the intention was not to provide meals for all the children out of the public rates or other public funds and get the money back when they could. The genius of this clause was to provide for the necessitous child, and to make those pay who could afford to do so. He had great sympathy with that object, but if hon. Members would look at the early parts of Clause 6they would see that the Bill was really meant for the relief of necessitous children. It was laid down in the Bill that, where the local authority decided that there were children in their area who were unable by reason of lack of food to take advantage of the system of education provided, they should have food provided for them. Those were the necessitous children who were entitled to take advantage of the system provided. And if the funds, either charitable or otherwise, were not sufficient the local authority was given power to raise a halfpenny rate. If the words of the Amendment were put in they would be surplusage. Knowing what he did of the mysteries of the law he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he would find in the end, if his Amendment was carried, that he had put words into the Bill which would have an effect entirely different from that which he intended to bring about. For the rest, this clause was so hedged round with safeguards that public money could only

  765
  be spent upon the children who really were suffering from want. He thought that with all the safeguards which had been applied, not only in this case, but in the case of Clause 2, they might dispose of this Amendment and proceed to the consideration of the others on the Paper.
  MR. HICKS BEACHthought that the hon. Member's argument was very much in favour of his hon. friend's Amendment, because during his argument he had used the very words which his hon. friend wished to put in. He used the words "necessitous children" and those were the words which they wished to have inserted They wished to have it made perfectly clear that the funds which were to be raised from the rates should only be used for the purpose of assisting necessitous children. That they had always understood was the intension of the Government, but from the recent declarations of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education he understood that the intention of the Government was not to provide for necessitous children, but to provide meals for all children whose parents, whether they could pay or not, would like those meals to be provided. That was a very different thing from what they understood before. He had very considerable doubt about the advisability of putting a charge of this kind upon the rates at all, particularly after reading the evidence given before the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill. He would refer to the evidence of the gentleman who came from Bethnal Green, who said there was no difficulty at all in feeding the necessitous children, and that there was ample money in London and to spare for that purpose. Then the witness who came from West Ham said that voluntary subscriptions had met all their difficulties in feeding necessitous children in that place, and that they had no difficulty whatever in getting voluntary subscriptions. The very least the Government could do was to make their meaning quite clear by inserting words of the nature proposed, and confining the section entirely to the case of necessitous children. It was all very well to say that in the case of other people who were not necessitous the local authorities would recover the money,
  766
  but if the evidence were looked at it would be found that one witness after another stated that it was very difficult to get the money out of the parents. One witness was asked in plain terms whether the game was worth the candle, and he said that it was not, that the sum recovered was so small that it was not worth while spending money on its recovery.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTappealed to the Solicitor-General to explain to the House what in his view would be the effect of this Amendment upon the clause.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid that having served on the Committee upstairs he wished to say that if he shared the fears of hon. Members opposite that under Clause 3 public funds would be resorted to for other than necessitous children he would support the Amendment; but he was quite satisfied that that would not be possible under the Bill, inasmuch as the provisions of Clause 2 applied in these cases also.
  MR. HERBERTsaid everyone agreed that the meals which had to be provided out of the rates should only be given to necessitous children, but he thought there was no necessity as the Bill stood for a local authority to recover the whole amount of the cost of the food given to children of parents who were not really necessitous. Probably the difficulty arose owing to Amendments made in Committee, and the wording of Clause 3 did not very well express the meaning. He would suggest that the words "in such meals" should be left out and the words "to such children" should be substituted.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONthought the House required some legal advice on the point, for he failed to understand why the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)was surprised that hon. Members should be so inconsistent as to expect him to explain the effect of an Amendment which they were moving. He had not had the advantage of following the debate, but he was bound to say that he did not think any prolonged or skilful inspection was necessary to see that these

  767
  words were superfluous. The word "such," especially from a legal point of view, was one of the most valuable words in the English language, and used in the clause as qualifying the word "food" it met the purpose of the Amendment. The words of the Amendment would add somewhat needlessly to the complication of the section.
  *MR. CAVEsuggested that in place of "such meals" the words "the food required for providing meals for such children" should be inserted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 244. (Division List No. 497.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bertram, Julius

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Younger, George

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Hunt.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Clough, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gill, A. H.

  Alden, Percy

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Gulland, John W.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Astbury, John Meir

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crean, Eugene

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Delany, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Dewar, John A. (Inversness-sh.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'd

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

  Dillon, John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Boland, John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hogan, Michael

  Brace, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hudson, Walter

  Branch, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jenkins, J.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Burns, Rt. Hn. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kelley, George D.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  O'Malley, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Mara, James

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lough, Thomas

  Paul, Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Summerbell, T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thorne, William

  Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, George J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robinson, S.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Murnaghan, George

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Murphy, John

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nicholls, George

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sears, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Williamson, A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Milkenny)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  O'Donnell, T. Kerry, W)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  O'Grady, J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  *MR. CAVE:moved to leave out the word "section" in line 18, and insert the word "Act." Under the clause as it stood the local authority could not spend more than a halfpenny rate for the provision of food, but they could spend more upon providing the meal and serving it, and this was what he wished to limit The original intention of this Bill was to limit the entire expenditure under it to a halfpenny rate, and that was the object of his proposal. The insertion of limits of this kind very often produced economy and prevented extravagance. He begged to move.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'section' and to insert the word 'Act."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid it was impossible to accept this Amendment. The Government wished the machinery provided in Clauses 1 and 2 to stand quite apart from Section 3, which dealt with the amount of the rate the local authority might impose. The effect of the Amendment would be that no machinery could be provided, and that no canteen could be opened on what might be called

  771
  voluntary principles. The local authority would have to levy the halfpenny rate before effect could be given to Clause 1 if they adopted the Amendment.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid the Committee recommended that the local authority might have recourse to the rates for the provision of the cost of the actual food, the local rate for this purpose in no case to exceed a halfpenny in the pound.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 19, after the first word 'any,' to insert the words 'local financial."
  "In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the word 'year,' to the word 'shall,' in line 21."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY:moved to omit line 27, the effect of which Amendment would be to disfranchise parents who did not pay for meals with which their children had been provided. He believed that disability should be put on a parent if he did not pay. Whatever might be said to the contrary, a parent became a pauper if he did not pay. The Amendment would not disfranchise a parent who paid for the meals supplied to his child.
  MR. HICKS BEACH,:in seconding the Motion, said if parents who did not pay for the meals were not disfranchised a real injustice would be inflicted on those who did pay. Under the Transvaal Constitution which had just been published it was proposed that people who had received relief within six months before the election were to be disfranchised. It seemed to him that the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, to leave out line 27."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LOUGHsaid it was the intention of the Government that disfranchisement
  772
  should not take place for the supplying of meals under the Act. The tendency in Acts of this kind, for many years past, had been not to impose the heavy penalty of disfranchisement under circumstances such as this Bill would set up. He might mention that under the Vaccination Act of 1867, the Elementary Education Act of 1870, the Medical Relief Act of 1885, and the Public Health Act of 1891, those who accepted relief were not disqualified from voting. They lectured a parent who had not paid, they sent him a bill, they tried to make him pay, and, in the last resort, they could send him to gaol. If they did all these things for the price of a meal, he thought they might say they had done enough.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONthought the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill might have given the House one more instance. Last year the late Government in the Unemployed Bill specially laid it down that no disfranchisement would follow on receipt of relief in regard to employment.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDappealed to his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 2, line 30, to leave out from the word 'disability,' to end of clause."—(Mr. Lough.)
  "In page 3, line 12, at the end, to add the words 'or in the collection of the cost therefore."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  *SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)said he must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in order to raise a very important question in moving the rejection of Clause 7. Two Bills were originally introduced, one dealing with England and the other with Scotland. The English Bill was discussed at considerable length, and the Scottish Bill was passed at eleven o'clock without the slightest discussion. The latter Bill

  773
  was cast in a very different form from when it came down from the Select Committee. The Select Committee heard ample evidence. Those who on that Committee were acting with him had nothing to do with the summoning of the four witnesses from Scotland who were examined. Everyone of those witnesses unhesitatingly condemned this Bill, and indicated that there was no general opinion in Scotland in favour of it. Their evidence also showed that there were resources of private charity in the large towns and cities and also in the country districts which were amply sufficient to meet all necessitous cases. The Bill was based on English conditions and on English statute law and altogether disregarded the position in Scotland. He had had to do with the administration of education in Scotland as permanent head of the Education Department for over twenty years, and during the whole of that time he had urged that Scotland should be dealt with by separate Acts of Parliament if it was to be dealt with at all satisfactorily in the interest of the public service. One instance he would give where that course had not been followed, and where Scotland had been compelled to accept a Bill which dealt primarily with England. He meant the Teachers' Superannuation Act. He know from his own experience that that Act had worked untold hardships on the teaching profession in Scotland, and had seriously interfered with the work of education in Scotland. He did not think that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and the hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs, who were both intimately acquainted with the administration of education in Scotland, would be inclined to differ from him in his argument that separate Acts in regard to education were absolutely necessary if the work of education in Scotland was to be conducted satisfactorily. He asked the House to consider whether it was a fair way to deal with Scotland to introduce this clause, which implied a very large change in the social and economic condition of one kingdom on principles which were applicable solely to another. The Bill had received absolutely no discussion on the Second Reading, and only four witnesses from Scotland had been examined in regard to it before the
  774
  Select Committee, all of whom were opposed to its provisions. It was passed in that Committee in spite of the hostile attitude of many Members, including many hon. Members opposite. It was he himself who moved that hostile Motion, and as he had said, many Ministerialists supported him, and the Scottish application was passed by one vote only. He would ask hon. Members what would have happened if in a Select Committee dealing with a Bill relating to England a proposal was carried in the teeth of a unanimous body of adverse evidence against the Bill. The Bill might be a good one or it might be a bad one. It might have points in it which were for the advantage of Scotland; but Scotland had a right to be consulted and to have a separate Bill laid before the country so that Scottish Members could obtain a distinct expression of opinion from their constituents. What was the evidence from Scotland beyond the evidence which came from that country? [Cries of "The Royal Commission."] In regard to the Royal Commission no one was more responsible for getting it appointed than he was himself. he sat upon it, and he was prepared to adhere to every word of the Report of that Commission. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite if he was prepared to adhere to the Report of that Commission? If he had so adhered they would have had a very different Bill from that which they were now discussing. But they were not confined to the evidence of the witnesses before the Royal Commission, because before the Select Committee they had the evidence from all the great Boards in Scotland, including witnessess from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Govan, and they all spoke against this proposal. Indeed he knew of no evidence in its favour from any school board or any body in connection with them. None of them had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. It was only that day that he heard that the Association of School Boards, representing the whole of the School Boards of Scotland, came to a resolution adverse to this Bill. He would quote one opinion which he was sure would have some weight. It was that of Miss Flora Stevenson, who had carried on a very useful work in connection with school boards in Scotland. Miss Stevenson had been

  775
  removed from their midst, but it was only a short time ago that she received the very fitting honour of being admitted to the freedom of the city of Edinburgh. On that occasion she spoke some words which in his opinion were prophetic. She said that they had in Edinburgh for thirty years tried to solve the problem of dealing with destitute children, and she thought that it would be an evil day for Scotland if the Legislature put upon the school boards the duty of providing meals for underfed children. He wished to ask this question. Was this Bill fit for Scotland, and did it take into account the conditions under which Scotsmen lived? In conversation the other day with the Secretary for Scotland he pointed ont that he felt some difficulty about the exclusion of voluntary schools from the aid which was given under the Bill. The Bill was drawn for schools under educational authorities in England, but it entirely disregarded the position of Scotland, in which there were voluntary as well as rate aided schools. He had pointed that out to the Secretary for Scotland and alluded to the difficulty which he felt. The conversation took place at one o'clock, and afterwards, between one and three o'clock, Amendments were put upon the Paper without being entered upon the votes which completely changed the system in Scotland. That motion was made by the Secretary for Scotland with scarcely a word of explanation, and it provided that these voluntary schools should be aided from the rates. he was very glad to find such a thing done, but he was surprised to find that it had been received with such ready assent from hon. Members opposite. He thought however that hon. Members would agree that a momentous change of that sort ought not to be made by such methods and by an Amendment put down at two or three o'clock on a Saturday morning. Did hon. Members understand what this meant? These institutions had no connection with municipal bodies, and yet they were to receive assist-
  776
  ance from the rates in regard to the furnishing of lands, buildings, officers, and other services. They would have to build additional rooms and furnish them, and in this way they would incur great expense. Another objection was that while under the Education Act medical inspection was given in England no such provision was given in Scotland, but this Bill ought to be based on a previous medical inspection. All ill health and all mal-nutrition were not due to a failure to provide food, and the Government had not adopted as part of the Bill a provision for medical inspection in the case of Scotland. He thought it was only fair that a similar provision should be made for Scotland as was made for England. Not only that, but in England they had local education authorities which were municipal bodies. These bodies dealt with a large range of population and dealt with it in a variety of aspects. What was the case in Scotland? The school boards were nearly a thousand in number, and many of these were small boards scattered over small areas in the country. They were told that the Bill was optional. That in Scotland would be one of its chief disadvantages, because some small school board might adopt it and so force the hands of their neighbours all over the length and breadth of Scotland. Was that a fair way of conducting legislation? He asked that they should be given a Bill of their own based upon their statute law and suitable specially to the needs of Scotland. It was for these reasons that he, apart from any objection to the Bill, asked that Scotland should have the opportunity of dealing with the measure in her own way after the chief authorities of the country had been consulted. Therefore he begged to move the omission of the clause.
  MR. BARRIEseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line B, to leave out Clause 7."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. McCRAEsaid that a great service had been rendered to the cause of education in Scotland by the hon. Member who had just spoken, and he congratulated him on his speech, which was national rather than imperial in tone, and he was not sure that his broadness of doctrine would be appreciated upon the side of the House upon which he sat. He had yet to learn, however, why this Bill should not be applied to Scotland? It was said that it was not necessary in Scotland, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that from official inquiries that had been made by the Royal Commission there was great need for this Bill in Scotland, and he went so far as to say that if Scotland was excluded from the operation of the Bill it would be a great injustice to that portion of the Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman had said that they ought to have a separate Act for Scotland, and no doubt in many cases a separate Act was advisable. But this Bill was so simple that he really did not think it was necessary to bring forward a separate measure When hon. Members talked at length on the clauses of a small Bill such as this, if the case of Scotland was not considered on a Saturday morning till three o'clock, he was afraid that the responsibility for that condition of affairs rested upon hon. Members around him, but it was not encouraging to them to bring in a separate Bill for Scotland. The hon. Member seemed to think that Scotland was not in favour of this Bill, but at a meeting held in Edinburgh they were unanimously of opinion that this clause should apply to Scotland. The hon. Member had referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. He said that they would not go the length of recommending State aid for the feeding of children. But the Royal Commission of which the hon. Member was a distinguished member said, and in doing so went beyond their remit,
  778
  that food should be given at schools in certain cases and that the charge should fall upon the rates. He quite agreed that the Royal Commission did not recommend that the meal should be provided by the local education authority, but they did advise that in certain cases the expense should fall upon the rates. Did the hon. Gentleman remember the the evidence put before the Royal Commission by the Member for Oswestry, who was chairman of the Physical Training Sub-committee of the London School Board? The hon. Member told them that all these things could be done by voluntary effort. He said he was quite sure that there were no children really underfed now in the London Board Schools. The Commission accepted his evidence as to be relied upon, but he was afraid that the evidence they had got since showed that that opinion was not accurate, and he was sure the hon. Member himself would bear him out in this sense, that if it had been pointed out to the Royal Commission that the state of affairs in London had been as it now was they would have found that it could not be met by voluntary effort. He did not hesitate to say that the Royal Commission, feeling the great importance of this question, and recognising the necessities of large towns like Edinburgh and Glasgow, went outside their remit and recommended that something should be done. He would say, moreover, that not only in the towns but in the rural districts there was great necessity for these provisions, and he could not imagine how any Member from Scotland could advocate that that country should be denied of her share of the privileges of the Act.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire)said the Government could not accede to the Amendment. He did not share the hon. Baronet's opinions as to the feelings of Scotland with regard to the Bill. The real answer to the opposition was that it was open to local authorities to apply the Bill if they wished. There was

  779
  evidence of physical deterioration in Scotland as in England, as there was evidence of the existence of parents who were unable to fulfil their parental obligations. He did not see how it would be possible or proper to pass this Bill without extending its provisions to Scotland. The small Amendments made at his instance in the Bill during the Committee stage were not proposed without full consideration. Under the Education Acts for Scotland, while the school boards had no obligations to the voluntary schools, they had obligations to the children, and it was a short but perfectly legitimate stop that the obligation should be extended in respect of this matter, and that the children of all schools should be treated alike.
  MR. GULLANDagreed that Scotland should be treated by separate Acts, if they could get them; but during the long life of the late Government no fewer than three Education Bills were introduced for Scotland andall throe failed to pass, and in a matter such as this where they could get a Scottish reform in a general Bill they should have it. The opposition was by no means so strong as it was before the inquiry of the Select Committee.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: The Edinburgh School Board petitioned since this Bill passed through Committee.
  MR. GULLANDadmitted that the majority on the Edinburgh School Board was at first eleven to two, and on the amended Bill nine to five, showing that opinion was changing. The inquiry that had recently taken place in the poorest parts of Edinburgh in respect to the children had shown the great necessity
  780
  for work of this kind. The voluntary funds in Edinburgh often ran short and the meals had to be stopped. This Bill was required not only in the large cities, but in the country districts of Scotland, where children came long distances to school, often in bad weather.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid the opposition of the hon. Baronet came ill from one representing a body of men so far removed from poverty. He (Mr. Price) represented a district largely composed of people who would benefit by the passing of the Bill, and where it was urgently needed. The Bill need not apply to Scotland unless the people liked it, and in that sense it was truly Home Rule. The treatment this measure had received from the point of view of Scotland showed the necessity of having a Parliament to settle their own affairs.
  Question put.
  Tha House proceeded to a division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who challenged his decision to rise in their places, and he declared the Ayes had it, thirteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE v BILL BUSINESS.
  URE ELDER FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHINA, No. 2 (1906).
  Further correspondence relating to the decree issued by the Chinese Government on 9th May, 1906, respecting the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs.
  NAVY (DISTURBANCES AT PORTSMOUTH).
  Admiralty Minute in regard to disturbances at Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, on 4th and 5th November 1906, and courts-martial and other questions arising thereon.
  GUNNERY.
  Result of test of gun layers with heavy guns in His Majesty's Fleet, 1906. Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, confirming certain by-laws made by the Tyne Pilotage Commissioners for the River Tyne in substitution for the by-laws hitherto in force.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AND MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND ACT), 1898.
  Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1906, further altering the scale of light dues to be levied under the Act of 1898.
  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSION ACT, 1865.
  Order in Council, dated 1st December 1906, directing that any pay, half pay, &c. of officers of His Majesty's Navy or the Royal Marines may be abated to meet mess debts or other similar debts or liabilities.
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
  Account of the fund under the Acts, 57 & 58 Vict, and 61 & 62 Vict., showing the income and expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1906.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 27th November 1906, granting a retired allowance to Edward Aldridge, William Henry H. Butler, and Charles Gough, overseers and senior telegraphists, Central Telegraph Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments disagreed to, together with a reason for such disagreement, the said reason to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 237.)

LAND TENURE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My first two Amendments are of a purely verbal character.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word 'his' and to insert the word 'a."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 24, after the word holdings,' to insert the word 'England."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwished, before this Amendment was put, to raise a point in regard to which he hoped the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture would be able to give the Committee some information. He desired to know the exact position

523
in which they were now that all reference to the inherent capabilities of the soil had been struck out.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW)thought that the proper time for any general observations oh Clause 1 would be when the question was put that the Clause should stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to leave out "determined by" and to insert "referred to" in sub-section (2). This was, he explained, the first of three or four Amendments to this sub-section. They all hung together, and were designed for the purpose of clearing up a point which was at present obscure. If their Lordships would look at sub-section (2), they would find this provision—
"All questions which, under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, or this Act, or under any custom or contract of tenancy, are to be determined by arbitration shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, and whether the tenancy commenced before or after the passing of the Act, be determined by a single arbitrator."
If the questions had been limited to those under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, there would not be any obscurity at all. But by adding the words "or under any custom or contract of tenancy" doubts had been raised in the minds of land agents both in England and in Scotland, and in the minds of many of their Lordships, including himself, as to whether it might not be supposed that the Government were intending to do away with mattesr of valuation and similar things of that kind contained in any contract of tenancy. Lord Carrington had told them the other day that that was not the intention of the Government, and, therefore, he had drafted these words in order to put more clearly, as he thought, the intentions of His Majesty's Government. He would deal with the Amendments as he came to them. The first one, which he now moved, was to strike out the words "determined by" and to insert the words "referred to."
524
It was true it was only a drafting Amendment, but at the same time it was to a certain extent a matter of substance. Where arbitration was mentioned in the present Acts the words "referred to arbitration" and "reference to arbitration" were applied, and he thought they should use the same terms in this clause.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 26, to leave out the words 'determined by,' and to insert the words referred to."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I think my noble friend and the Government mean the same thing. I am advised that the words "determined by" are correct, inasmuch as in the present Acts, with which this Act should be read, there is a provision that questions shall not only be referred to arbitration but that they shall be determined in that manner. I think it will be better to use the same phraseology when the same thing is intended. I am advised that "determined by" are the better words.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that if the noble Earl was so advised he would not insist on the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAYmoved an Amendment providing that these questions "may," instead of "shall," be determined by a single arbitrator. He had put down this Amendment because there seemed a great deal of doubt owing to so many references to other Acts as to exactly what the effect of the sub-section would be. The question was whether it was intended compulsorily to require all questions of valuation between the outgoing and the incoming tenant to be settled by one arbitrator or whether the provision referred only to the question of improvements in sub-section (1). In the past the outgoing and the incoming tenants had always been able to arrange these details satisfactorily themselves. If the sub-section as it stood did away with the liberty of each of the parties to appoint his own valuer, that was a serious matter. It ought to be left optional.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the word 'may."—(Viscount Galway.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The Amendment which Lord Galway has moved is a very important one, and I regret I am unable to accept it. I think, however, I shall be able to explain my action satisfactorily to him. It is very desirable when Parliament enacts that certain questions should be determined by arbitration that they should state clearly and precisely what the form of arbitration should be, so that expense and litigation may be avoided. Our great object in the Bill is to make the settlement of differences between landlord and tenant as inexpensive as possible. What we want to insure is that the arbitrator should always act judicially and not as the advocate of one side or the other. As it is at present, the two valuers—they are called arbitrators—meet, and when unable to come to a decision, bring in a third person who is called an umpire. What we want is that instead of "umpire" you should read "arbitrator." Our object is to bring about an improvement in the arbitration work and in the position of the arbitrator now that his duties are considerably increased. I can assure the noble Earl that there is no intention whatever of interfering in any way with the present arrangement by which two valuers are appointed. There is a good deal to be said for the present arrangement, and there is nothing to interfere with it except that the arbitrator will not be allowed to go behind the back of the tenant and the landlord to select the umpire. If, and only if, they fail to agree, these two umpires then refer the matter to a single arbitrator, whose decision will be final. That is the object of the Government. Our endeavour is to simplify and cheapen the procedure in settling cases of difference which must arise, and to do away with the old difficulties that have often come before the Board, sometimes to such an extent that disputes have gone on for two or three months at a cost of several hundred pounds, and not on the main question but on the question of whether or not the matter was to go to arbitration.
526
Noble Lords will surely agree that that procedure needs improvement, and therefore it is that, after due consideration and deep thought, we have come to the conclusion that the appointment of a single arbitrator on the conditions I have named is the proper course to pursue. As I have said, I cannot accept the Amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNdid not feel quite sure that the noble Earl fully appreciated the point which his noble friend who moved the Amendment had endeavoured to enforce. In the case of a difference between landlord and tenant, that difference might be settled under the Agricultural Holdings Act by two arbitrators and an umpire, or by a single arbitrator. What Lord Carrington desired to do, as he understood, was that when reference was made to the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Agriculture should appoint only one umpire.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Viscount has put the case in a nutshell. That is exactly what is intended.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that in every case of an outgoing and an incoming tenant there must be a valuation, in which two valuers were appointed. If they differed in such a case an umpire had to be called in to settle the matter, but, as a rule, they were able to agree. They did not want that system interfered with. They did not want all these matters referred to the Board of Agriculture for them to appoint an arbitrator. He thought the words as they stood did seem to preclude the ordinary course of valuation between an outgoing and an incoming tenant, because the noble Earl had inserted in the clause the words "under any custom or contract of tenancy." He did not think the subsection as it stood was at all sufficiently explicit to make it quite clear that the system he had referred to would not be interfered with. He was quite sure that the general wish of the agricultural world was that it should not be interfered with. He thought the Government might reconsider the point.
EARL CARRINGTON: We are quite prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the Earl of Camperdown, to insert, after "1900," the following proviso—
"Provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation."
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought this would meet the case, subject to the reconsideration of the words, if necessary, on Report.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHhad no desire to interfere with a harmonious arrangement, but he did not think the insertion of the words proposed would meet the point. That proviso apparently was for a valuation which would not require to go to arbitration at all. Their point was that if they had to go to arbitration they should preserve the preliminary consideration of the matter between two friendly valuers, and should not be cut out of that method of procedure.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid that after the explanation of the noble Earl he was quite prepared to withdraw his Amendment, provided it was clearly understood that in no way would the old custom of each party having their own valuer be interfered with.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to alter the position of the words "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." This was, he said, little more than a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary and."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: If I understand the noble Earl correctly, we are quite prepared to accept his Amendment. As I understand, the sub-section, as he proposes to amend it, would read as follows—
"All questions which, under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900 or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or this
528
Act, or under any custom or contract of tenancy, are to be determined by arbitration shall, whether the tenancy commenced before or after the passing of this Act, be determined, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, by a single arbitrator," etc.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is what I move.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not in the least object to this re-arrangement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH,who had several Amendments on the Paper, said they were all designed with the object of carrying out what he believed had now been achieved by the acceptance of Lord Camperdown's Amendment. He did not intend, therefore, to move those Amendments.
*LORD HENEAGEquestioned whether the proviso which Lord Carrington had expressed his willingness to accept would secure the retention of the custom in the various counties. He was not altogether satisfied that Lord Carrington clearly understood what the custom in some counties was. The present mode of procedure was that when there was a change of tenancy one valuer was appointed by the outgoing tenant, and one by the incoming tenant or the landlord, as they might choose; but under the present Act he was not an arbitrator and could not be an arbitrator. He could only be appointed as an agent, and his decision would only be able to be determined under the law of agency. That was to say, if two people agreed either by themselves or by their agents, under the law of agency that was a determination of the fact and was as good as law. But under this Bill they would not be able to do what was now the custom. The custom was for the two valuers to appoint an umpire beforehand, and if there was any single item upon which any difference of opinion arose, that item was referred to the umpire, whose decision the valuers were bound to accept. This was done at very little expense, and only the one item in dispute was arbitrated upon. If in the case of a valuation fixed at £500, one valuer thought there ought

529
to be another item added, and that it should be £550, what would go before the arbitrator for decision would be that solitary item; but, as this clause stood, if the two valuers did not come to an agreement, the whole question had to go before the arbitrator. The noble Earl had said that the object of the Board of Agriculture was, as far as possible, to lessen expense. He was afraid the contrary would be the result. What he wanted to be assured of was that if the Committee accepted the proviso to be moved by Lord Camperdown, they would retain the Lincolnshire custom and the other customs in the different counties. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture had received a deputation from the midland counties tenant right valuers and the tenant right valuers of the neighbouring counties, and when they asked whether or not the custom was preserved he only referred them to the Memorandum of the legal advisers of the Board of Agriculture. That Memorandum simply stated that two people might agree if they could, but if they could not, then the matter must go to arbitration. Therefore, he was not at all certain in his own mind, even if the proviso were accepted, that they would retain their present system and the legal rights they had had for generations.
EARL CARRINGTON: Unfortunately I was not brought up in the law. Therefore, I dare not give a legal opinion myself, and must take the opinion of our legal advisers. I am absolutely assured that all the points that the noble Lord has put before the Committee will be met. At any rate I can say that that is the object of His Majesty's Government. We do not want to interfere with any custom. All we want to do is to cheapen and simplify the process of arbitration, and to raise the status of the arbitrator. I think I can ease the noble Lord's mind about the single arbitrator's having to decide the whole question. The whole question may be brought before him, but if the two parties agree on every other question except one, I do not think even the most litigious person would wish to interfere with them. All he would have to arbitrate about would be the single question which it would be necessary to have decided. I believe the noble Lord
530
can rest perfectly assured that there is no intention, and there will be, I hope, no possibility of any of the customs referred to being interfered with. The whole system of arbitration will go on in the same way, save with the difference I have tried to point out. I hope Lord Heneage will be satisfied with that assurance.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid this was so important a point that he hoped the noble Earl would excuse him for pressing it. The noble Earl said that the usual custom was to be preserved intact, but the custom, as he understood it from Lord Heneage's description, was two-fold—that two valuers were appointed, and that they appointed an umpire. Now, the umpire was done away with by the noble Earl's clause. Therefore, the clause, while not interfering with the custom so far as the appointment of valuers was concerned, did interfere with the custom in regard to the appointment of the umpire. If he was not right in that, he hoped the noble Earl would correct him. They were getting into a little confusion between the words umpire and arbitrator. As he understood, the noble Earl meant when he used the word "arbitrator" the same thing as Lord Heneage meant when he used the word "umpire." Lord Heneage's umpire was appointed by the parties without any expense and without any fuss, but the arbitrator under the noble Earl's clause would be appointed in the most expensive and operose way, and in his opinion to the detriment of the tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: The custom would only be interfered with in this small point. The two old arbitrators or valuers if they do not agree cannot under this Bill appoint an umpire off their own bat; they can appoint an umpire if, and only if, they are authorised so to do by the landlord and the tenant respectively. That is the only difference between our proposal and the present custom.
LORD BELPERpointed out that if the agreement between the landlord and tenant was such as Lord Heneage

531
had mentioned, it was saved by the acceptance of Lord Camperdown's proviso to the effect that nothing in this section should interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation. It seemed to him that the case was entirely covered by the acceptance of this proviso.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HILLmoved to delete from sub-section (2) of Clause 1 the words, "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, and whether the tenancy commenced before or after the passing of this Act," and to insert in their place the words, "unless the parties agree to appoint their own arbitrator or arbitrators according to present usage." He found himself much in the same position as Lord Heneage. Even with Lord Camperdown's proviso he could not see but that the clause did away with the old custom in this matter. It had been the custom in nearly every county in England for the outgoing and incoming tenant each to appoint his valuer independent of the landlord, and before these gentlemen entered upon their valuation they themselves appointed an umpire to be called in if necessary. This system had worked most satisfactorily, and he would be within the mark in saying that95 per cent. of tenant right valuations had been satisfactorily decided without resorting to the umpire. He wished to retain that part of the Agricultural Holdings Acts which gave an appeal to the Board of Agriculture should the two valuers not be able to decide upon a satisfactory umpire. As the old system had worked so well it was better to retain it. Under the clause as it stood there was considerable complication in the matter, and the appointment of an arbitrator by the Board of Agriculture would involve expense to both the outgoing and the incoming tenants. The Bill, instead of, as the President of the Board of Agriculture had declared, cheapening matters, would, to his mind, considerably add to the cost of valuation, and, even with Lord Camperdown's proviso, the present right of the tenants to appoint their own valuers would be done away with.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the word 'be' in line 3, and insert the words 'unless the parties agree to appoint their own arbitrator or arbitrators according to present usage"—(Viscount Hill.)
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was quite certain that what the noble Viscount desired would be effected by Lord Camperdown's proviso; it was the same thing. He therefore hoped the noble Viscount would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
EARL FORTESCUEmoved to amend sub-section (2) so that it would read that the arbitration should be determined "either" by a single arbitrator, etc. His object in inserting the word "either" was to enable people to avail themselves of the present practice, and to use Part II. of the Schedule to the Act of 1900 in the way they had been accustomed to for a great many years. Inconvenience would, he thought, be caused in many cases if this permission were not given.
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 3, after the word 'determined' to insert the word "either"—[Earl Fortescue.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand that my noble friend proposes that the clause should read in this way, that all questions shall be determined either by a single arbitrator, or by two arbitrators, and an umpire, in accordance with the provisions set out in Parts I. and II. of the second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act. I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment. It might in some ways improve the existing arrangement, but it would perpetuate the dual system contained in the Act of 1900 which it is our declared object to simplify.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON: The object of my next Amendment, which is really of a drafting nature, is to make provision as to the mode in which the amount awarded under any of the provisions of the Bill shall be recovered.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 6, after '1900' to insert the words 'and any sum awarded by such arbitrator to be paid, shall be recoverable in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, for the recovery of compensation".—(Earl Carrington.)
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid this was not merely a drafting Amendment. There was a point of substance in connection with it to which he would like to call the noble Earl's attention. In addition to compensation to be awarded to the tenant there might also be compensation in respect of a counterclaim by the landlord against the tenant, and he submitted that whatever facility was given to the tenant for recovering his compensation should also be given to the landlord. Obviously both parties should be on the same footing.
EARL CARRINGTON: My attention has not been drawn to that point. I will make a note of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthen submitted his proviso which the President of the Board of Agriculture had already signified his willingness to accept.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 6, after '1900' to insert the words 'provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation.'—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*LORD KNARESBOROUGHmoved to insert at the end the following new sub-section—
"(3) Any award made under this Act shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or improvements or matter or matters to which the award relates."
He said that this Amendment was obviously necessary to carry out the intentions of the Legislature. This Bill
534
went much further than the Act of 1900, for it awarded compensation for damage by game and other incidents, so that it was necessary to add some words to the clause to bring it into line with the Act of 1900. Their Lordships would be unanimous in hoping that if the Bill became law it would work smoothly and cause as little friction and discomfort as possible. There was, however, nothing more likely to cause friction than any trouble with the arbitrators. He did not mean so much that they should necessarily be suspected of corruption or of leaning to the one side or to the other, but they might get into the way of giving slipshod decisions and guessing at a lump sum instead of carefully deciding on every point submitted to them. The arbitrators were entrusted with an arbitrary power, a power without appeal, of handing over to one man the money of another man. When a lump sum of money was awarded, they wanted to know exactly on account of what matters the arbitrator had awarded it, how much he had awarded for compensation to the tenant on each separate claim, and how much he had deducted for the counter-claim of the landlord. They wanted as much light as possible. Any one who had anything to do with arbitrations knew perfectly well that it was most difficult to get any light at all. Dolus latet in generalibus was a very good maxim in these affairs. In this matter there was no assistance from the common law, while under the old system of choosing two arbitrators, and their choosing an umpire, they had a safeguard in the fact that in the terms of reference to the umpire they could stipulate for any particulars wished for, even as far as a detailed valuation. A further safeguard was that, as the umpire had to be agreed on by both parties, if it got known that an arbitrator would not give the amount of information which the parties concerned wished for he would get no employment as an arbitrator. This safeguard was now entirely swept away. The arbitrator would now look for his appointment to the Board of Agriculture, and he would look for his instructions to the Act, so that it was absolutely necessary that in passing the Bill their Lordships should make it clear what the intentions of the Legislature were.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 6, after "1900,' to insert the following new sub-section:—(3) Any award made under this Act shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or improvements or matter or matters to which the award relates.—(Lord Knaresborough.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the hope he has expressed that the Bill, if it should become law, should work smoothly. He has explained his Amendment so very clearly that I think it only remains for me to say that I am personally obliged to him for having brought it forward, and that I accept it in its entirety.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that there was a point upon which he wished to have some information. This clause having abolished the elements that the valuer had to consider, he would like to know on what basis the valuer would proceed in assessing the value to the tenant of any improvements or any action he might have taken on the holding. He would put an extreme case By way of illustration. It was a case where a road was endangered by the sea. A tenant, through some action that he took, not very serious in character, had been able to save that road. Would the tenant be entitled to the value of the road? This was a case of the ordinary determination of a tenancy, not a case of disturbance. Was the tenant to be repaid the value of the improvement, or was he Merely to be repaid the expense to which Be had been put in taking the course that led to the improvement of the road? If the tenant were to receive more than his outlay, they would be giving to the tenant not that which he had a right to be compensated for, but something which was the landlord's. Although legally the landlord was responsible, primarily the charge fell on the incoming tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand the noble Duke to ask me whether, in the
536
event of a tenant resisting the ravages of the sea, by which I suppose he means if he mended the bank and kept the sea back, he would be able to claim that he should be paid for the land he had saved. Curiously enough, I know a case of that kind within my own experience, It was not, however, a case of the sea, but of drains. There was on one occasion what in Scotland, I suppose, would be called "a heavy spate," and great anxiety was shown as to the safety of the banks of one of those large drains in Lincolnshire. One of my own tenants saw that the water was beginning to trickle over one of the banks, and if the water came over the bank in any quantity it would flood the fen, which was below the water level. This tenant of mine wisely placed his curt on the top of the bank and get a lot of stones and strengthened the bank. The result was that the bank broke on my neighbour's side, to his great discomfort and annoyance; but I never heard of a claim being made by that worthy tenant of mine that he should be compensated for having saved, not only his own farm, but the farms of other tenants from being flooded. I think the case cited by the noble Duke was rather an extreme one to take. No Amendments of any kind have been put down on the Paper in regard to such a point, and I hope, in the circumstances, the noble Duke will be satisfied with having raised it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYcomplained that in the interesting and amusing narrative of the noble Earl no attempt had been made to answer the noble Duke's question.
*EARL EGERTONpointed out that if a tenant carried out work in respect of roads or banks which he was not under contract to carry out he should be compensated by the landlord for the amount of work done, but he acquired no proprietary right in respect of the road itself.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture had not answered in the least the question put to him. He thought, therefore, that perhaps the best course to take would be to move

537
on Report the addition of the following words at the end of the subsection—
"and that such sum shall in no case exceed the fair value of the labour expended or the outlay incurred by the outgoing tenant."
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—
EARL CARRINGTON: I have two drafting Amendments to this clause. The clause as it stands reads—
"Where a tenant has sustained damage to his crops from game that neither he nor anyone claiming under him other than the landlord has the lawful right to kill, he shall be entitled to compensation," etc.
My Amendments would make the clause read—
"Where a tenant has sustained damage to his crops from game the right to kill and take which is vested neither in him nor in anyone claiming under him other than the landlord he shall," etc.
The Amendments are designed to make it clear that the tenant has a right to compensation for damage done by game during the close season.
Amendments moved—
"In page 2, line 8, to leave out the words 'that neither he nor" and to insert the words 'the right to kill and take which is vested neither in him nor in," and in line 9, to leave out the words 'has the lawful right to kill."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD REDESDALEmoved an Amendment to provide that the compensation for damage done by game should be claimed from the person in whom the right to kill the game is vested. He said the Amendment was an exceedingly simple one. It did not affect the principle of the Bill, nor did it affect the principle of the clause. If the Amendment were accepted, the tenant would not be one penny poorer in any matter of compensation which the Bill might give him. The only thing he desired to do was to simplify the method by which he could obtain that compensation. The principle he desired to establish was a very just one. It was that the person who inflicted the damage should pay the compensation. He could not see why the landlord should be called in as
538
middleman between his tenant and the person who had inflicted the damage. He knew he would be told that the tenant had only his landlord to look to. The tenant had in many matters besides this looked to his landlord in the past, and, as Lord St. Aldwyn had pointed out on the Second Reading, he had not looked in vain. On the other hand the landlord had received at the hands of his tenant great sympathy in many and various circumstances. It was an ideal relationship which at present existed between landlord and tenant, and anything which went to upset that good feeling would, to his mind, be disastrous to the tenant and inconvenient to the landlord. The Amendment simply desired to avoid friction and to simplify the method of obtaining compensation. If the landlord was to stand between the tenant and any other person, they would be creating new friction and new difficulty in country life. His opinion was that it would be as simple for a tenant to get his compensation direct from the man who had injured him as to obtain it by the intervention of the landlord. This intervention would raise ill-will between the landlord and the shooting tenant.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'his landlord' and to insert the words 'person in whom the right to kill game is vested."—(Lord Redesdale.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has put his case very clearly, and I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment. The Amendment is that the tenant should recover from the shooting tenant. On the face of it that certainly sounds fair enough, but the difficulties would be very great in working. The principle embodied in the Bill is that he tenant should be entitled to claim from the landlord direct, and I will try and explain why. The noble Lord said that his plan would avoid friction and that he wished to simplify the procedure. Of course, we quite understand that; but I would ask him to consider the case of the shooting that I mentioned in my speech on the Second Reading, where, though the weight of pheasants was only 5,000 a year, in the

539
announcement of the letting it was said that the property would easily carry 15,000 pheasants. Again, I tried to show the difficulties that a tenant would have in running all over the country to find the shooting tenant so as to recover from him. The shooting tenant would undoubtedly say, "I have taken this shooting and paid a large sum for it, and I ought to be clear of all liabilities." And I think very justly so, too. But there is another case. Suppose the shooting were let to a syndicate. What chance would the tenant have there? I know of a shooting that is let to a syndicate including an admiral, a parson, a doctor, a solicitor, and two other people. What earthly chance would the poor tenant have of bearding the admiral in his den, or of rushing after the other professional people? I do not think it would work at all. Since I have entered the House I have heard of a shooting tenant who went bankrupt, and the shooting was taken by someone else for ten days. What would be the position of the tenant in such a case? There is a great diversity of opinion among landlords on that point. I met a friend at the Cattle Show who pointed out that if these obligations were put on shooting tenants it might choke them off, or they would not pay such good rents. More-ever, the landlord can always make arrangements with the shooting tenant at the time when the shooting is let. I believe I shall have the Committee with me when I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
*VISCOUNT ST.ALDWYNhoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment. He did not think that shooting tenants were quite such men of straw as the noble Earl opposite would make them out. Many of them, he thought, were better off than the landlords. He would point out that shootings were often let for very short terms. He had heard of a noble Lord who offered to let his shooting for five days. In such a case it would be almost impossible for a tenant to know to whom he was to look. He believed that the noble Earl opposite had promised that the date of the commencement of this clause should be postponed so as to enable fresh agreements to be made with regard to it, and if that was done he thought
540
their Lordships would be well advised not to accept the Amendment.
LORD REDESDALEcould not see that the reasons given by the noble Earl for not accepting the Amendment were at all valid. He did not himself attach very much importance to the difficulty of recovering from syndicates. Shooting tenants did not run about the country any more than other people, and he had heard of quite as many cases of bankrupt landlords as of bankrupt shooting tenants. But as it was apparently the wish of the Committee, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to amend Sub-section 2—
"The amount of compensation payable under this section shall, in default of agreement made after the damage has been suffered, be determined by arbitration, but no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing of intention to make a claim for compensation is given to the landlord,"—
by omitting the words "intention to make a" and inserting the word "the.' Your Lordships will see that this is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words 'intention to make a,' and to insert the word 'the."—(Earl Carrington).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought this was more than a mere drafting Amendment. It had to be taken in connection with Lord Carrington's Amendment which followed later on, to insert, after the word "landlord" the words "as soon as may be after the damage was observed by the tenant." As the sub-section would then appear it would read—
"The amount of compensation payable under this section shall, in default of agreement made after the damage has been suffered, be determined by arbitration, but no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing of the claim for compensation is given to the landlord as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant."
What he suggested was that notice should be given to the landlord as soon as

541
the tenant observed the damage being done, and before he made any claim at all. That was important. According to the Amendments to be moved by Earl Carrington the claim would be made at the same time as the landlord would be informed that the damage was occurring. He thought that a mistake. He suggested that these words should be inserted—
"unless notice in writing is given to the landlord forthwith upon the discovery of damage occurring, and unless notice in writing of the intention to make a claim for compensation is given to the landlord."
LORD HYLTONsaid he had an Amendment on the paper to meet the very point Lord Camperdown had raised. The words he proposed to insert were—
"and unless notice of the damage has been given to the landlord as soon as it commenced."
He thought their Lordships would recognise that when this Bill became law and a successful action had been carried through by one tenant, claims of this sort would arise all over the country. The point in question, therefore, was one of the most important in the clause. He hoped that his words, or words to that effect, would be inserted.
LORD HENEAGEsaid that one of the greatest difficulties that would arise under this clause, which necessitated that the notice should be given as early as possible, was the enormous amount of damage done in the spring by wood pigeons and crows. If the notice was put off until the autumn it would be absolutely impossible to say whether the damage was done by the wood pigeons and rooks or by the pheasants.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think the case will be met by the later Amendment which I have on the Paper. It is in page 2, line 20, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant." I placed this Amendment down to meet Lord St. Aldwyn's suggestion. It is designed to give effect to what is, I believe, the general view on both sides of the House, that the tenant should give notice to the landlord as soon as he discovers that damage by
542
game is being done. Will those words satisfy the noble Lord?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN dissented.
EARL CARRINGTON: Then I would ask the Committee to accept my Amendments provisionally, and allow me to consider the point between this and the Report stage.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked why the tenant should not be required to give information at once. The damage would be immediately observable. A tenant who did not go over his farm every day was a tenant he would not like to have on his land.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that Lord Carrington had intimated his willingness to insert the words "as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant." Did not that meet the point raised?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid notice of the damage was a thing by itself and ought to be given first. Then notice of the claim, if any, should be sent in. He wanted the two things to be separate.
EARL CARRINGTON: Will the noble Earl allow me to consider the point, and endeavour to meet his views if possible?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Certainly; but in the meantime it would not be advisable to insert these words.
EARL CARRINGTON: They can be cut out afterwards, if necessary.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid that Lord Carrington would probably lose his Amendments if he insisted upon them now. He suggested that the Amendments should be postponed till the Report stage, when the noble Earl could bring up fresh words.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN:urged the Committee to agree to the clause in the shape the Government desired to amend it, which was certainly better than the clause as it stood.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNdid not think the clause as proposed to be amended would be better than the clause as it stood. If the Committee inserted the words proposed by Lord Carrington, and left the other part unsettled, they would be getting into a difficulty.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the Committee accepts these Amendments, the Bill will be reprinted with the Government Amendments in, and it will then be open to noble Lords on Report to move Amendments if the clause does not meet their wishes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid if this was the wish of the Committee he would raise no objection. It should, however, be understood that they would expect the noble Earl himself to propose an Amendment on Report. On that understanding he would agree to the insertion of the Amendments now.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think I ought to be asked to give that undertaking. I will promise to give the best consideration I can to the point. After all, noble Lords opposite have the matter in their own hands, for any Amendment they move can be carried.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 20, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words' as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant and."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 22, after the word 'raised' to insert the words 'or where the crop is intended to be consumed without being reaped or raised, at least three weeks before the crop is begun to be consumed."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD HYLTONsaid his point had not been met by the Amendment which had just been accepted, and therefore he moved the insertion of the words "and
544
unless notice of the damage has been given to the landlord as soon as it commenced." He regarded this as a perfectly clear provision, for unless words to this effect were inserted neither the landlord nor his agents would have any opportunity of preventing the very damage which might afterwards have to be dealt with under the clause. The words in his Amendment had been framed after consultation, and he was very disinclined not to take the sense of the Committee upon it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 26, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'and unless notice of the damage has been given to the landlord as soon as it commenced."—(Lord Hylton.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): Has the noble Lord considered the meaning of his Amendment? As it reads, the tenant would be barred from compensation unless he gave notice at the first moment that the damage began—that is to say, at the first moment that the first pheasant ate the first grain of corn. I really do not think that is an Amendment which we can accept.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDagreed with the view taken by the noble Marquess. As he read the Amendment, if it could be proved that the tenant had not seen the first symptoms of damage the tenant would be debarred from claiming compensation. He did not think the provision in the Amendment was one which could be reasonably enacted.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNexpressed a hope that Lord Hylton would not press his Amendment. Already words had been agreed to that notice should be given "as soon as may be" after the damage was first observed by the tenant. He thought that met the case.
LORD HYLTON: That only relates to the claim for damages.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that Lord Camperdown wished to raise this point on Report, and he thought they

545
had better see the clause in the shape the Government proposed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDhad an Amendment to sub-section (3). This sub-section provided that—
"Where the landlord proves that, under a contract of tenancy made before the commencement of this Act, any compensation for damage by game is payable, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such contract allowance in respect of such damage to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall, in assessing the compensation under this section make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may appear just."
The noble Duke moved to vary the two first lines of the sub-section so that they would read—
"Where the landlord proves that, under a contract of tenancy, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act," etc.
As the words at present stood there was some doubt whether the sub-section referred to the future. His Amendment would make it clear that in all future agreements the same arrangements might be made between landlord and tenant.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'tenancy,' to insert the word 'whether' and after the word 'before,' to insert the words for after."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very glad to accept that Amendment. We think it a very good one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE,on behalf of the Earl of Powis, moved an Amendment to provide that the arbitrator, in assessing compensation for damage by game, should make deduction where the landlord proved that in fixing the rent an allowance in respect of such damage had been expressly made. The clause at present said where an allowance "to an agreed amount" had been made in fixing the rent. He moved to omit those words "to an agreed amount," because in many cases, while the farm was let at what was called a game rent, the amount of reduction from the full rent was never expressly mentioned, and consequently the amount
546
of allowance for game damage was not an agreed amount. If these words were left in the sub-section a tenant might claim under this Act to be paid twice for any damage by game. These arrangements for allowances in the rent for damage by game were generally made in a friendly way and not expressed in the leases. Lord Powis had let a farm of 191 acres, the original rent of which was £180 a year, for £150 a year, in consideration of its being a game farm. There was a clause in that agreement, signed by the tenant, which ran as follows—
"It is acknowledged by the said…that the within-named rent has been fixed at a lower sum than the actual annual value of the land on the understanding that in the event of any damage being done by game the said…shall make no claim against the Earl of Powis for any damage so done."
But in the case of farms which he (Lord Pembroke) treated on the same lines, the arrangements for allowance were not expressed in the agreements. He hoped his Amendment would be agreed to. He felt that the provision as it stood would be more harmful in many cases to the tenant than it ever would be to the landlord.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words to an agreed amount."—(The Earl of Pembroke.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I readily acknowledge that there is a great deal to be said for the case which the noble Earl has made out. It certainly would be a monstrous thing if, after the landlord had made a reduction in rent on account of any damage to crops from game, a litigious tenant should take advantage of the absence of any direct proviso in the agreement, and make a claim under this section, contending that there was nothing in his agreement to show that the reduction he had received was in respect of game and game only. I cannot, however, go so far as the noble Earl and say that I am against the express amount allowed for game damage being stated. Noble lords must think a little of the protection of tenants on estates that are not so well managed as their own. Therefore we press the provision that in all future agreements of this character the express amount of

547
allowance for game damage must be mentioned in the agreement. I am ready to go as far as this, that in existing cases the agreements should be taken as intended. But in all future cases I submit that it is imperative that the amount of rent reduction on account of game should be stated specifically.
*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE: Will the noble Earl move words to carry that out?
EARL CARRINGTON: If the Committee would permit me I would propose to move the following proviso to meet those cases—
"Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and, for the purpose of this proviso, a tenancy from year to year shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant by giving notice could immediately after the commencement of this Act have caused the tenancy to determine."
Although that is rather involved, as I am afraid many of these clauses are, I think the Committee will understand the spirit of the proviso. If, by any alteration of the words, I can make it clear that in all cases where the landlord has behaved in a gentlemanly and proper way, he is to be absolutely protected from paying twice, I shall be very pleased to make that alteration later. It must be understood that as soon as the tenancy becomes a fresh tenancy then the landlord must put into the agreement the express amount allowed for game damage.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEthought the words proposed by the noble Earl would meet the case, and suggested that they should be inserted in the Bill at this stage so that noble Lords could see them in print when the Bill was reprinted and judge of their effect.
LORD BURGHCLEREthanked the President of the Board of Agriculture for having expressed his willingness to insert the proposed proviso, which, as he understood it, carried out the suggestion he ventured to make in the course of his observations on the Second Reading. He thought then, and he still thought,
548
that there would be a certain amount of injustice if a tenant had secured a farm at a rent which had been reduced on account of the weight of game carried, and then claimed under this Act to be paid again for any damage by game. He understood that Earl Carrington's proviso met that point, and he was much obliged to him for drafting it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNagreed that the words suggested by Earl Carrington met the case of fresh yearly tenancies, but they did not appear to meet the case of leases.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is just what the proviso does. All existing leases will be protected by the proviso. The only thing is that I ask the permission of the Committee to make it distinctly understood that when these leases are determined an express provision for game damage shall be put in.
*THE EARL OF LICHFIELDasked whether it would be necessary under the proviso in the case of yearly tenancies to give notice to every tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think that would be necessary.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKE THE EARL OF PEMBROKE then withdrew his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL CARRINGTON: I now beg to move the insertion of the proviso which I read to the Committee a few moments ago.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following proviso—'Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and, for the purpose of this proviso, a tenancy from year to year shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant by giving notice could immediately after the commencement of this Act have caused the tenancy to determine."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move to amend Sub-section 4, so that it will read—
"Where the right to kill and take the game is vested in some person other than the landlord the landlord shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person against all claims for compensation under this section."
The insertion of the words "and take the" is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 35, after the word 'kill, to insert the words 'and take the."—(Earl Carrington.)
*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHasked whether this Amendment did not rather confine the operation of the subsection to a shooting tenant only. A case might occur where a landlord owned a small property and did not have any game of his own upon it at all, but where damage was done to the tenant by the game belonging to a neighbouring owner. In that case the tenant would have to claim against his own landlord. Was it quite clear in the sub-section that in that case the landlord would be entitled to be indemnified by the other owner? It seemed to him that there was a considerable difference in the case of damage being done to a tenant by game which had nothing whatever to do with his landlord.
EARL CARRINGTON: This question of game coming from the property of a neighbouring owner is one of great difficulty. We have fully considered it, and on the whole we think it is the fairest way of dealing with it to make the landlord responsible for all the game that is on his property. Honestly, I do not see how any other way could be arrived at. Game, when on a man's estate, is his own property and he is responsible for what that game does.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid that if a tenant suffered damage from game coming from an adjoining property and then claimed compensation from his landlord, his landlord in turn could claim compensation from the adjoining landlord under the common law.
EARL CARRINGTON: That is so.
LORD BELPERasked Earl Carrington to explain the meaning of his Amendment. It appeared to him that the words proposed to be inserted restricted the right of the landlord to recover from the shooting tenant.
EARL CARRINGTON: The words mean to kill with a gun and take with a trap or net game that he has a right to kill or take in any way. You can take partridges with a net and you would not kill them. I believe a very lucrative business is done among the crofters in Scotland by netting grouse.
LORD BELPERexpressed the hope that if this was the explanation the noble Earl would alter his Amendment to read "or take the" instead of "and take the."
EARL CARRINGTON: I agree.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The object of the next Amendment is to clear up any ambiguity about the meaning of the word "year."
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 41, after the word 'game,' to insert: 'The expression "year" means the calendar year or such other period of twelve months as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought this was the wrong place to put in a definition of a word which applied to the whole Bill. It had no particular reference to this section, and therefore ought o be dealt with in the definition clause at the end.
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot see any objection to putting it in the definition clause at the end of the Bill if the noble Earl desires.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYmoved to amend sub-section (1) by omitting

551
the word "Notwithstanding" at the commencement of the sub-section, and inserting, "Except in the case of." The sub-section would then read—
"Except in the case of any custom of the country or the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement respecting the method of cropping of arable land, or the disposal of crops produced upon the holding, a tenant shall have full right to practise any system of cropping of the arable land and to dispose of the produce of his holding without incurring any penalty, forfeiture, or liability contained in any such contract of tenancy or agreement, provided that he shall previously have made, or, as soon as may be, shall make, suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration, and provided also that he shall return to the holding, as soon as may be, the full manurial value of all crops sold off or removed from the holding."
The effect of his Amendment was, he said, to retain the law of contract which had been the foundation of our commerce. He could understand that, in cases where a man was of weak intellect and incapable of making a fair bargain, or where a contract was detrimental to the public service, the State should step in and declare that such a contract should not be upheld. But this was not the case in regard to the contracts in question. He asked their Lordships whether it was not the fact that the tenant farmers of Great Britain were well able to take care of themselves. In entering into these contracts they knew perfectly well what they were about, and he was convinced that they intended fulfilling them. Therefore why should the Government at this stage step in and tell them they need not comply with their contracts? It was immoral for the Legislature to declare to a free man in a free country that he was not compelled to fulfil a contract he had entered into. According to the public Press, his noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture had been having some agreeable little parties during the week with the tenant farmers of Great Britain, and he would respectfully ask the noble Earl, if those gatherings had not yet come to an end, to put to those tenant farmers the question whether they were unwilling, or considered themselves unable, to fulfil the contracts they had made. He was quite certain that the tenant farmers would treat with scorn any idea that they were not willing to
552
carry out those contracts. But, human nature being what it was, it was quite natural that if a gift was offered to them they would not cast it away; but they would, he was quite certain, at the same time feel that they had not acted fairly by their landlords. A contract was generally made, so far as Scotland was concerned, for nineteen years; and if in the middle of that period the Legislature stepped in and declared that the tenant was at liberty not to carry out the conditions of the contract, great injustice would be done to the landlord. Certain provisions had been made in the original lease which had to be fulfilled and which were the cause of the rent's being fixed at a lower rate. In every lease upon his own estate there was a clause under which no tenant could claim compensation for game until after £25 worth of damage was done. That meant that under every lease upon his estate the farms were £25 under-rented, because it was expected that there would be damage done by game to that extent. His estate had been held by his family for 300 or 400 years, and the best of relations had always prevailed between them and the tenancy. He might mention that on several of his moorland farms the tenants planted a bit of cropping in order to allow their landlord to have some sport. He would like to know where this sort of legislation was going to stop? Were they going to have the law of contract continually thrown in their face as worth nothing? It was quite possible that noble Lords sitting on the Government benches might not have as much land as other Members of this House, but as business men they were making contracts of various kinds every day, and what would they think if in commercial contracts made three or four years ago the Legislature stepped in and cancelled them? Simply because this was a question of the land an exception was made. He thought this was a point which ought not to pass without the few observations he had made, and he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 1, to leave out the word 'notwithstanding' and to insert the

553
words 'except in the case of."—(The Earl of Galloway.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The Committee would hardly wish me to go minutely into the law of contract, but I have in my possession all the precedents for this proposal, but I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them in detail. If any South of Scotland farmers come to see me on Friday next I shall certainly ask them the question whether they approve of freedom of cropping, or whether they wish the old system of restricted covenants to be carried out. If they happen to be the noble Earl's tenants I feel certain what the answer will be. They would say that having been for 300 years on the ground they were perfectly happy, and their only wish would be to remain under so good a landlord during the rest of their lives. The Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment, and I think the noble Earl will agree with me when he examines how the clause would be altered by his proposal. I will just read to the Committee how the clause will read when the alterations suggested by the noble Earl have been made in it. It will read—
"Except in the case of any custom of the country or the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement respecting the method of cropping of arable lands."
If the noble Lord had such a great objection to the clause he ought to have moved its omission at an earlier stage. I I hope that the Committee will not support the noble Lord in his Amendment, because it would practically stultify and emasculate Clause 3.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYdenied that his Amendment destroyed the clause, and all it did was to make it not retrospective. It did not affect the principle of the Bill at all.
Amendment put, and negatived.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to omit, in line 3, the words "of arable land."
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words 'of arable land."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid the Government considered it was very desirable that the drafting of those words should be changed, and in order to make their meaning quite clear they would be pleased to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved an Amendment to the effect that a tenant should have full right to practise any system of cropping of the arable land provided it was "consistent with the rules of good husbandry." This Amendment was one of considerable importance, and the question for the first time brought them face to face with one of the difficulties of dealing with England and Scotland within the terms of one Bill. This clause was designed primarily to give freedom of cropping to yearly tenants. It was obvious from the history of the Bill that the authors of it intended it to apply to the customs of the country with which they were acquainted, and it was apparent that they had scarcely heard of the existence of Scotland, of the customs or of the leases which prevailed there. What they did in this clause was apparently to give complete freedom of cropping, with a claim for damages if bad cropping was resorted to. That might be all very well in this country, because it could not go very far in the case of a yearly tenancy, and only one or two years bad cropping at the most could possibly go on. If, however, they gave absolute freedom of cropping under a nineteen years lease, which was the custom in Scotland, the whole farm might be absolutely ruined before the landlord could stop the damage going on. It was perfect nonsense to offer the landlords a claim for damages for this set of thing, because it was utterly impossible to estimate the damage in money. It was a matter which could only be put right by long and careful management of the farm. He suggested that his Amendment was quite reasonable, because he did not suppose that the Government in their wildest moments desired to give freedom to their tenants to do a bad thing. Under the clause as it stood there was nothing to prevent a tenant taking as much as he

555
could out of the land. He might have eight or ten white crops in succession if he liked, and if that were done it was obvious that it would ruin the whole farm for a long series of years, and under the clause as it stood Scottish landlords would have no remedy at all. Surely the Government did not wish to give a tenant power to do anything which was not consistent with the rules of good husbandry. If that was their view it was only reasonable that the words he suggested should be inserted in the Bill. He did not deny for a moment that in some cases the rights of the landlord might be carried too far. In some instances there might be in operation useless relics of past practices, but nevertheless he thought some restrictions were absolutely necessary, and those which he wished to retain by this Amendment were universally admitted by every practical man, whether tenant, landlord or agent, or anyone connected with agriculture, to be absolutely sound and in the interests of everybody concerned. It was obviously not in the interests of the landlord to have his land run out, and it was not in the interests of the community that the land should be impoverished. The only person interested in such a matter as that were the small minority of rascally tenants who wanted to take everything they could out of the land and give nothing in return. It was only bad tenants who had recourse to that kind of thing and not the good tenant, and bad tenants who resorted to that practice would be sure to be men with no means which could be got at in order to compensate the damage done. At any rate, in his opinion prevention was better than cure. He hoped his suggestion would be adopted if only for the credit of their Lordships' estates. He was sure there was nothing more unpleasant than to drive past one's estate and see the land being impoverished and their friends and neighbours saying to them "Look how badly your property is being managed." Under this clause the only reply they would be able to make would be that they were powerless to prevent it. He did not want to keep up obsolete restrictions, but when this great change was being made he thought they were entitled to have satisfactory
556
safeguards, and they ought to impose a condition that only such departures from their bargains should be made as were consistent with the rules of good husbandry.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land,' to insert the words 'consistent with the rules of good husbandry."—[Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD HENEAGEasked whether the noble Lord who had just sat down would not prefer the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Penrhyn. The Amendment which had just been moved was no doubt extremely good for Scotland, but in England they had different kinds of husbandry and different customs in various parts of the country, and what they wanted was that the land should be cultivated in such a way as to bring about the best results according to the nature of the soil and the rules of husbandry in those particular districts. Whilst he did not wish to oppose Lord Balfour's Amendment, he thought if the noble Lord would accept the next Amendment on the Paper it would be much better for England than the one which he had moved.
LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid he thought they were entitled to have some reply from the Government.
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand from Lord Heneage that he wishes Lord Balfour's Amendment to apply to England. [Cries of "No."]
Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH:I think my Amendment is equally applicable to England.
LORD HENEAGEsaid he did not think it would be so good for England as the one standing in the name of Lord Penrhyn, which proposed to insert in Clause 3 the words, "generally recognised in the district ns good husbandry in respect of land of a like character." The Amendment of Lord Balfour proposed to insert the words, "consistent with the rules of good husbandry," and he did not think that provision was

557
so suitable for England as the words suggested by Lord Penrhyn's Amendment.
EARL CARRINGTON: Then I understand that the noble Earl objects to Lord Balfour's Amendment. I listened very attentively to Lord Balfour's speech, and although the Government would not object to his contention, we do strongly object to and cannot agree to his words. We think his Amendment is undesirable on the ground that it tends to restrict the freedom of cropping proposed to be given by this Bill, and it will give rise to difficulties as to what good husbandry really means. Of course any departure from the custom of the country would be regarded as contrary to good husbandry. At the same time, as your Lordships are aware, provided land is properly treated with artificials, a departure from the custom of the country is not only possible but sometimes profitable, and may be adopted without any deterioration of the holding. I think there would be a good deal of difficulty caused if these words were inserted. The noble Lord said the freedom of the tenant to do a bad thing was very objectionable, and I quite agree with him. I was rather brought to book because I did not mention in my speech on the Second Reading that there was such a thing as a bad tenant. I do not think anyone who has been a landlord for forty years would be likely to deny that there was such a thing as a bad tenant, but what I wish to point out is that the object of this Bill is to put every difficulty in the way of a bad tenant and if possible to get him off the estate, because a bad tenant is a greater nuisance to his landlord and his neighbours than a bad soldier is in a regiment.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Earl point out one difficulty that is put in the way of the bad tenant by the Bill?
EARL CARRINGTON: If a tenant injures or deteriorates his holding, not only can the landlord recover damages from those whom the noble Lord has described as rascally tenants, but he can also get an injunction against them. The noble Lord has referred to a suppositious individual who would undertake
558
eight white crops running. Evidently he had forgotten that there were such persons as agents or factors, and the landlord or his representative would be very much to blame if he allowed any tenant to have eight white crops running.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But under this Bill as it stands the factor or agent of the landlord is absolutely deprived of any power of that kind in the case of a lease.
EARL CARRINGTON: I see the noble Lord's point. He maintains that in the case of a lease a landlord would be practically at the mercy of the tenant. My point is that in many districts any departure from the ordinary rotation of crops would be regarded as contrary to the rules of good husbandry, and I trust that on this account the noble Lord's Amendment will not be pressed. There is, I admit, the risk which the noble Lord has pointed out, but it is only a very small one. [Cries of "No, no."] At any rate, I do not think the risk is as great as noble. Lords opposite seem to fear, and I hope the clause will be accepted as it stands.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope my noble friend will press his Amendment, and that the noble Earl will reconsider the attitude which he has assumed towards it. The answer he has given seems to me to be absolutely inconclusive. Does he really mean to suggest to the Committee that the tenant should under this Bill be given a right of free cropping inconsistent with the rules of good husbandry, because that is what his refusal to accept this Amendment implies. Let me remind your Lordships that these Bills—I use the plural because we have had other Bills of a similar character lately—are recommended on the ground that there are to be found here and there; capricious and harsh landlords who treat their tenants badly. The noble Earl has admitted that those cases are extremely rare, and I venture to say they are much rarer than the case of the reckless and unscrupulous tenant who, by maltreating his farms, does an amount of damage which it takes years to set right. I hope that unless the noble Earl is able to give us some more satisfactory assurance

559
than we have yet received your Lordships will support my noble friend' Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that Lord Balfour of Burleigh had stated that this clause as it stood gave no sort of kind of protection to a landlord in the case of a lease. He happened to be a landlord, although he sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and he confessed that if the arguments of the noble Lord were true this clause would certainly be a most indefensible one. He did not pretend to be a lawyer himself, but as he read sub-section (2), if a tenant exercised his rights in such a way as to injure or deteriorate the holding the landlord could recover damages. The words of sub-section (2) were—
"if the tenant exercises his rights under this section in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate the holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate the holding, the landlord shall be entitled to recover damages in respect of such injury or deterioration or, as the case may require, to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of the rights under this section in that manner, and the amount of such damages may, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration."
The landlord also could obtain an injunction restraining his tenant from doing anything which would injure or deteriorate his holding. Surely those words covered the case of the tenant mentioned by Lord Balfour of Burleigh who, holding his farm under a lease for nineteen years, cropped his land in the injurious way suggested for four or five years in succession. The object of the sub-section was that in such a case the agent presumably, or the landlord himself, could give the tenant notice of the condition of things and could obtain an injunction against him.
*Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: There is no such thing in Scotland as an injunction.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was speaking more as regarded the state of things in England, but he was assured that words were already in the Bill which would cover the point that had been raised. [Cries of "Where?"] At any rate if they were not already in the
560
Bill the Government would undertake to put them in.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:hoped it was distinctly understood that if the point raised by the noble Lord was not already provided for, words to meet the case would be inserted in the Bill at a later stage. He would like to know where those words would be put in.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid that personally he preferred the Amendment of Lord Heneage because, although it carried out the same idea as the Amendment moved by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, it was rather wider in its terms and would embrace those cases where husbandry was carried on in different ways in various parts of the country. He thought the noble Lord who had just spoken had missed the point in the same way as his noble friend in charge of the Bill. They were told that they might proceed against their tenants by injunction, and that landlords had factors who went about to see what was going on. He wished to point out that in the past landlords had not had occasion to use their factors as detectives in order to ascertain, what was going wrong on any particular holding, and they had got on much better without resorting to that course. As regarded freedom of cropping he thought their Lordships would have to insert some provision in addition to those already in the Bill. He had no objection to freedom of cropping, and his property in Scotland was mainly let upon nineteen years leases. In those leases freedom of cropping was absolutely sanctioned with the restriction that during the last four years of the tenancy the farm should be brought back to its ordinary condition. This was necessary in order to tempt anyone in search of a farm to take it when a change of tenancy occurred. They were told that they could get damages from the tenant, but the man who was likely to injure a farm by cropping in a deleterious manner was the last person in the world they would be likely to get damages from, because the only tenant who was likely to resort to that kind of thing would be a man who was on his last legs. He hoped the Committee would not take the advice

561
given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that artificials should be substituted to avoid the deterioration of a farm. He happened to have had an instance of that kind upon his own property in which everything that was possible had been taken out of the farm and the tenant had endeavoured to set it right by putting artificials into the soil. That farm eventually came into his hands when the tenant left, and for the last five years he had been trying to get it into a condition to let to another tenant, and this had been rendered necessary because the value of the holding had been destroyed by an improper and over use of artificials. He trusted that the Government would be able to accept at least one of the two Amendments which had been suggested.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he was willing to withdraw his own Amendment and move that standing in the name of Lord Penrhyn, who was absent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
Earl CARRINGTON: I was under the impression that under the clause as it stands at present if a tenant is deteriorating or injuring the farm the landlord has a right to claim damages and to apply for an injunction to stop that deterioration. I am told upon the highest authority that that is the case. I will, however, undertake to insert words to make it absolutely clear that no man because he is a leaseholder shall have the right, which is manifestly unfair and unjust, to damage his holding in the way suggested. The great object of this Bill is to do justice to both landlord and tenant, and to allow a tenant to have eight white crops running is certainly a thing that I would never agree to. I object to the words "good husbandry" because I am sure they would cause considerable difficulty. [Cries of "No."] At any rate, I am afraid that I cannot
562
possibly accept those words, but I offer as an alternative and as a compromise that if the noble Lord will accept the words as they stand I will see that it is made beyond all possible doubt or question that, in the case of a lease, the landlord should have the right at once to obtain an injunction under the circumstances which have been mentioned and that he shall be able to recover damages in the case of any improper conduct on the part of his tenant. That is as far as I am able to go in this matter.
LORD BELPERsaid they ought to do all they could to encourage the farmer to adopt the system of farming prevalent in his district. He thought the words contained in Lord Penrhyn's Amendment were sufficiently wide to cover the systems adopted in both countries where the land might vary and where, in order to secure successful farming, it should be worked in a particular way. He would like to know why the words suggested in Lord Penrhyn's Amendment were objected to.
The Marquess of RIPON: I hope my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will accept the suggestion which has been made on behalf of the Government. It would be unfortunate after the full promise which has been made by my noble friend if your Lordships took a division on this subject without knowing what the ultimate proposals of the Government are to be. This is really a Scottish question. [Cries of "No, no."] I do not know that noble Lords have any right to interrupt me because I state that this is a Scottish question. I believe it is a Scottish question, and it is certainly not an English question as far as this particular point is concerned, because it is obvious that an injunction would apply in the case of England, although it might not apply in the case of Scotland. For these reasons I think it would be better not to take a division, because that course would leave my noble friend free to bring up the proposal which he intends to do to give the landlord that security which I think it is only right and just he should have. As far as the clause itself is concerned, it is one to which I attach great importance. I believe that in these days the principle it contains is a

563
right and just one. It is a principle of public policy to secure to the tenant who invests his money in agriculture the right to exercise his own free judgment in regard to the manner in which he carries on his industry. If I may allude to my own case for a moment, I may say that I have had in my own agreements with tenants for the last eleven or twelve years provisions almost exactly the same as I find provided for in this clause. Those agreements have never produced the slightest difficulty, and if the position of a Scottish landlord is made secure, as has been promised by my noble friend, I think it will be much better if no division is taken upon this point.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid it was very difficult to resist the appeal which had been made by the noble Marquess, but he did not understand from conversations he had had with noble Lords that they regarded this as a Scottish question at all. He agreed that
primarily, it was a Scottish question because Scottish landlords were more affected by it on account of their system of long leases and because it was designed mainly to meet the case of the yearly tenant. He really thought after the months during which this Bill had been discussed, and the time it had been before this House, that the President of the Board of Agriculture ought to have put down on the Paper words which would have shown that the matter had really been considered by the Government. He did not want to be unreasonable, but he did not sec why the Government should not allow them to insert these words now, and if at a subsequent stage they could produce anything better they might adopt that course. He thought they would be losing a good opportunity if they did not now insert this Amendment.
On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough more.)

Bedford, D.

Hardwicke, E.

Devonshire, D.

Harewood, E.

Knutsford, V.

Grafton, D.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

St. Aldwyn, V.

Newcastle, D.

Jersey, E.

Northumberland, D.

Lauderdale, E.

Abinger, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Lichfield, E.

Addington, L.

Rutland, D.

Lindsey, E.

Alington, L.

Somerset, D.

Lonsdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Wellington, D.

Lytton, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Mayo, E.

Atkinson, L.

Anglesey, M

Morley, E.

Balfour, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Morton, E.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Exeter, M

Northbrook, E.

Barymore, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Northesk, E.

Bateman, L.

Salisbury, M.

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Winchester, M.

Orford, E.

Belper, L.

Zetland, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Biddulph, L.

Plymouth, E.

Blythswood, L.

Albemarle, E.

Radnor, E.

Borthwick, L.

Bradford, E.

Romney, E.

Braye, L.

Camperdown, E.

Scarborough, E.

Burton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Byron, L.

Cawdor, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Calthorpe L.

Clarendon, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Clements L. (E. Leitrim.)

Coventry, E.

Temple, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Darnley, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clinton, L.

Dartrey, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Denbigh, E.

Wicklow, E.

Colchester, L.

Derby, E.

Yarborough, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Devon, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Doncaster, E. (D Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Churchill, V.

De Freyne, L.

Falkland, V.

Deramore, L.

Egerton,E.

Falmouth, V.

Digby, L.

Feversham, E.

Halifax, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Fortescue, E.

Hill, V.

Dunboyne. L.

Elphinstone, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Saltoun, L.

Estcourt, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Forester, L.

Lawrence, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Sinclair, L.

Gerard, L.

Lovat, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Harris, L.

Middleton, L.

Southampton, L.

Hastings, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Stanmore, L.

Heneage, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Hothfield, L.

Mowbray, L.

Hylton, L.

Newlands, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

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

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Ormathwaite, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kenyon, L.

Poltimore, L.

Wolverton, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Errol.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Redesdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Burghclere, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Castletown, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Colebrooke, L.

Haversham, L.

Coleridge, L.

Headley, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Lyveden, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Beauchamp, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Pirrie, L.

Carrington, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Chichester, E.

Emly, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Durham, E.

Eversley, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Portsmouth, E.

Farrer, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Selby, V.

Glantawe, L.

Weardale, L.

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

Welby, L.

Boston, V.

Winterstoke, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 7, to leave out the words 'contained in any such contract of tenancy or agreement."—(Earl Carrington.)
Amendment moved—
"In lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words 'shall previously have made or as soon as may be shall make,' and insert, 'from time to time and as soon as may be makes."—(Earl Carrington.)
EARL CARRINGTONsaid the Amendment which had just been read to the House was simply a matter of drafting. It was thought that new words were necessary which would more adequately express what the tenant should do in order to protect the holding from injury or deterioration, and he hoped the words suggested would be satisfactory to Viscount Hill and Lord Wemyss.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that this was not a drafting Amendment
566
at all. He would like to read to the Committee the clause as it would stand after this Amendment had been made. It would read—
"Provided that he from time to time and as soon as may be makes suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration."
What did the words "from time to time" mean? They really meant no time at all, and the words "as soon as may be" meant as soon after that as possible. The noble Lord by this Amendment appeared to be taking the whole meaning out of the words of the clause.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped they would have some further explanation from the noble Earl. If a tenant sold produce which he had no right to sell, provision ought to be made to compensate the holding for such sale. He did not think the noble Earl improved his clause at all by the words he was proposing to substitute. On the contrary, he appeared to him to make its terms more vague than ever.
EARL CARRINGTON: I agree that these words are rather complicating, and if the noble Viscount thinks they ought to be altered I will undertake to bring them up again on Report in the hope of making them more clear. I think the words might be improved, and I hope we shall be able to improve them.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he did not know what the words "as soon as may be" meant.
EARL CARRINGTON: I should think they mean as soon as may be possible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to insert after the word "provision" the words "in accordance with the custom of the country or the provisions of the contract of tenancy." The tenant had to make "suitable and adequate provision," but there was no explanation in the clause of what that meant. By his proposal he endeavoured to define as far as possible what the tenant had to do. The operative part of the clause was that a man was to be entitled to freedom of cropping and to sell his produce notwithstanding any custom of the country or the provisions contained in his contract. The only suitable and adequate provision which in his opinion the tenant ought to make to protect the holding from injury or deterioration was that he should work his farm in accordance with the custom of the country and the provisions of his contract of tenancy He hoped the noble Earl would not reply that this proposal was going against the principle of the clause.
Amendment moved—
"In line 9, after the word 'provision' to insert the words 'in accordance with the custom of the country or the provisions of the contract of tenancy."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept the words of the clause as they stand. I think it is contrary to the interests of the landlord to introduce such limiting words as these. The Amendment will only complicate
568
matters, and it is not necessary to stipulate that the farm should be worked in accordance with the custom of the country, because in order to safeguard the landlord there is a provision that the tenant shall undertake not to injure or deteriorate his farm. I think that proviso is quite adequate.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNasked whether these words would be necessary after the Amendment which had been inserted in the first few lines. The whole clause was now subject to the rules of good husbandry, and that in his opinion would meet the point of this Amendment.
EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid that while they were dealing with this question of injury to and deterioration of the holding, he would like to know how the question of dilapidations would be affected. Would the landlord be able to recover damages, for dilapidations in the same way as before?
THE EARL OF CARRINGTON: Anything that is contained in the tenant's agreement he will be bound to observe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'and provided also that he shall return to the holding as soon as may be,' and insert 'which provision shall in the case of disposal of the produce of the holding consist in the return to the holding of."—(Earl Carrington.)
EARL CARRINGTON,in moving to insert the following proviso—
"Provided that this sub-section shall not apply (a) in the case of a tenancy from year to year, as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or (b) in any other case, as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of tenancy,"
said—It has been noticed that the word "crops" includes wheat, barley and

569
oats, and therefore the words which I have proposed are necessary. They provide that the tenant will not be obliged to return the manurial value of crops which are not usually required by custom or contract to be consumed on the holding.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'in contravention of the custom contract or agreement." Provided that this subsection shall not apply—(a) in the case of a tenancy from year to year, as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or (b) in any other case, as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of tenancy."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that there was an Amendment standing in the name of the Duke of Richmond which he thought ought to be discussed before the Amendment under consideration was disposed of.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid he was afraid that if this Amendment was now discussed and carried, the Amendment standing in his name would be shut out altogether.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthough tthe noble Duke ought to move his Amendment now.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it was quite clear that the words which Earl Carrington was now proposing had been brought up from the end of the Clause 7, and if they were inserted the Amendment to insert the words "last our years" would be precluded.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought that the noble Duke ought to move his Amendment now.
*THE DUKE OF RICHMONDmoved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to strike out the word "year" in sub-section (b) in order to insert the words "last four years." He said that if land were badly farmed, at least four years would be required to get the farm back into proper condition. This was a matter which arose in regard to freedom of cropping, and his con-
570
tention was that if they were not going to limit the time during which a tenant could indulge in cross-cropping or mis-cropping to the detriment of the farm, one year was not sufficient for the farm to recover, and at least four years would be required to get the farm back into its proper condition. He had no trouble whatever with his own tenants in regard to freedom of cropping, and the only provision he made was that during the last four years certain of the crops were to be consumed on the farm. If they allowed a tenant to mis-crop his farm in a deleterious way to within a year of the expiration of his lease, they would find at the end of his tenancy that the chances of letting the farm were very much diminished by the malpractices which had been going on. Those were the reasons why he put this Amendment down. He failed to see that any hardship would be inflicted upon the tenant, because, as a matter of fact, this was the practice at the present moment. It had been the practice for many years on a good many properties in Scotland, and there had not been one word of complaint in regard to it on the part of the tenants.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
"In sub-section (b) to leave out the word 'year,' and insert the words 'last four years."—(The Duke of Richmond.)
LORD HYLTONsaid they were all in favour of freedom of cropping wherever it could be done, and he had no doubt that most of their Lordships agreements gave very large powers in that respect. In the case of certain leases clauses were put in for the protection of the landlord which he thought were absolutely necessary to secure common justice. He had in his possession a letter from a large landowner on this point. He wrote—
"I have let an estate to an agricultural tenant on a short lease of seven years at a very low rent, below the rents current in the neighbourhood, on certain conditions as to cropping and the disposal of the produce."
He explained that he had done this in order to get certain conditions. In a case like that there would be no protection for landlords whatever unless some such Amendment as that proposed by the noble Duke was inserted.
EARL CARRINGTON: I regret that I am absolutely unable to accept the noble Duke's Amendment. He wishes to compel the tenant for the last four years of his lease to crop according to the rotation of crops. This is objected to by all the Scottish representatives for the reason that it would very seriously restrict the rights given to the tenant. The adoption of this proposal might lead to an unwillingness on the part of tenants to accept leases, and that result would be very much deplored in Scotland. We think the landlord is sufficiently safeguarded by the clause as it stands, and we ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment. As far as I am informed the feeling in Scotland is against it, and I very respectfully ask the Committee not to agree to it.
LORD SALTOUNhoped the Committee would divide upon this proposal, because there was not the slightest doubt that a period of three or four years was the least time in which it was possible to get the land back into its proper condition. If a farm was handed back to the landlord in
any sort of condition he would not be able to get the same rent for it, because he would have to begin by putting the land in a proper state for the rotation of crops before he could get a tenant. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Duke would press his Amendment to a division.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that this question showed the extreme difficulty of including leases in the clause. There were the same reasons for the noble Duke's Amendment as for the insertion of the words "consistent with the rules of good husbandry," which had been already agreed to. The landlord who was bound by a lease, and saw the tenant working out the farm without the power to prevent him, was in a very different position from the landlord who had let his land on a yearly tenancy. If the conditions were not made more fair for leases the landlords would not grant them.
On Question, "That the word 'year' stand part of the proposed Amendment," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Colleridge, L.

Lyveden, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Beauchamp, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Carrington, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Pirrie, L.

Chichester, E.

Reay, L.

Craven, E.

Emly, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Durham, E.

Eversley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Farrer, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Temple, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glantawe, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Selby, V.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Weardale, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Winterstoke, L.

Boston, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Castletown, L.

Haversham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bradford, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Bedford, D.

Camperdown, E.

Mayo, E.

Devonshire, D.

Cathcart, E.

Morley, E.

Grafton, D.

Cawdor, E.

Morton, E.

Northumberland, D.

Clarendon, E.

Northesk, E.

Richmond and Gordon, D. [Teller.]

Devon, E.

Onslow, E.

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

Orford, E.

Somerset, D.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Wellington, D.

Egerton, E.

Plymouth, E.

Feversham, E.

Radnor, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Camden, M.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Stradbroke, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Hardwicke, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Winchester, M.

Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

Waldegrave, E.

Zetland, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Lichfield, E.

Churchill, V.

Albemarle, E.

Lindsey, E

Falkland, V.

Falmouth, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Halifax, V.

Clinton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Hill, V.

Clonbrock, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L. [Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Colchester, L.

Lovat, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Middleton, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Addington, L.

Deramore, L.

Mowbray, L.

Alington, L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Newton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dunboyne, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Poltimore, L.

Balfour, L.

Estcourt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

Forester, L.

Saltoun, L.

Barrymore, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Sandys, L.

Bateman, L.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harris, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Belper, L.

Hastings, L.

Biddulph, L.

Heneage, L.

Southampton, L.

Blythswood, L.

Hothfield, L.

Vivian, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hylton, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Braye, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Burton, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wolverton, L.

Byron, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Calthorpe, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proposed words inserted.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN,who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert at page 3, line 12, after the word "holding" the words "to the same effect, and with the like enduring benefit to the land as if such produce had been consumed on the holding," said he would like to point out that in consequence of the previous Amendment having been moved and carried, both Lord Camperdown's and his own Amendment seemed to have been cut out for the moment, and he supposed it was not possible for them to go back upon a part of the clause that had been passed. He should, however, hold himself at liberty to move the Amendment on the Report stage.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that the noble Lord would see that whichever of the Amendments coming after the same word was taken first the other one would not have read, and therefore he was bound to put the first which stood on the Paper. He was afraid the noble Lord could not now move his Amendment, but he would have an opportunity at another stage of the Bill.
LORD SALTOUNsaid that his Amendment was not in any way the same as that of the Earl of Camperdown.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, after "shall," to insert "without prejudice to any other remedy that may be open to him." This is a drafting Amendment, but an important one. The words are necessary to make it clear that if a tenant exercises the right given to him in such a manner as to injure the holding the landlord is at liberty to protect his interest, not merely by the powers expressly given him by sub-section (2), but also by the enforcement of any remedy open to him. It is not intended to deprive the landlord of any means of protecting himself in case of a tenant exercising his rights in an injurious manner, and the clause would, therefore, read thus—
"The landlord shall, without prejudice to any other remedy which may be open to him, be entitled to recover damages,"
and so on.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 15, after 'shall,' to insert 'without prejudice to any other remedy that may be open to him.'"—(Earl Carrington).
LORD BYRONsaid the Amendment he was about to introduce was one of rather a restricted character than otherwise. Properly speaking, it should have come a little later on; it should refer to the injunction rather than to the recovery of damages. The Society of Land Agents, who had sent him a Memorandum (which

575
no doubt they had sent to many other noble Lords), had inserted it where he himself had inserted it—after the word "entitled," and before "to recover damages." If the Amendment was to refer to the injunction then the clause would read as follows—"The landlord shall be entitled at any time to recover damages," and so on. It was not very clear from this clause exactly when the landlord was to recover damages. The word "arbitration" occurred at the end of the clause, which looked as if it were to be at the end of the lease, but of course it was quite useless to proceed with an injunction at the end of a lease. He thought the slight security which would be given to landlords was not very much to ask, in consideration of the great benefits the tenants received under this Bill. The Society of Land Agents, who had recommended this provision, he need hardly say, were quite unprejudiced; they were neither for one side nor the other. After the able description by Lord Balfour of the manner in which land could be deteriorated by bad cropping, or by injudicious rotation, he thought that this Amendment merely carried out what was desired in regard to all agricultural holdings. He begged, therefore, to move the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid the noble Lord could move his Amendment at any place he liked, but he did not know whether he wished to put it in after the word "required," or after the word "entitled."
LORD BYRONsaid that if he might be allowed to amend his own Amendment he would put it in before the words "to obtain," and it would then read "the landlord shall be entitled to recover damages in respect of such injury or deterioration or, as the case may require, at any time to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of the rights under this section," and so forth.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that in that case, of course the Amendment of Lord Hylton would come first, and Lord Byron would move his Amendment afterwards.
LORD HYLTON,in moving to omit the words "or as the case may require," and to insert 'should the case so require," said he thought if the noble Earl would look at the subsection he would agree with him that the question of damages for injury done was a different matter altogether from obtaining an injunction for injuries likely to be sustained in the future. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would agree with the slight alteration which he proposed, so that not only might damages be obtained for any injury proved to have been done in the past, but at the same time an injunction might be applied for in order to prevent a continuance of such damage.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'or as the case may require,' and insert the words 'should the case so require."—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think there is any difference in point of principle between the noble Earl and myself. It is merely a matter as to which wording is the best. Damages are obtained for an injury already done, while an injunction is, of course, for the purpose of preventing future damage. Proceedings can be instituted for injunction in one action, and proceedings or recovery of damages in another. One remedy refers to the past and the other to the future. Damages cannot be obtained for a wrongful act not already committed, nor can an injunction be sought to prevent what has already been done. As I said before, there is no difference between us in point of principle and I hope the noble Lord will accept our assurance that the words, as they stand, are technically correct.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the only difference was one of English, and in his opinion Lord Hilton's I words were much better. "Should the case require" meant, of course, "if the case should require," and it seemed to him that that was better English than the phrase used in the clause as it stood.
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not press the point at all. If the noble Lord

577
wishes the words altered in that way there is no difference in principle whatever, and I will certainly accept the Amendment.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought it would be well if the noble Lord would pay a little attention to the drafting of the clause before the Bill came up for Report. It was possible either to obtain an injunction to restrain injury or to obtain damages after injury, and he thought if he allowed the clause to go in as it stood, the words "to obtain an injunction" being between the words relating to damages were in the wrong place.
EARL CARRINGTON: I will make a note of that.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the word "manures," the words, "corn, cake, or feeding stuffs," said the object of the words was to make sure that compensation was not paid twice over for the same thing. The noble Lord's intention was perfectly fair, because he put in "manures," but it had been suggested to him that it would be better if the words were exactly the same as in the Agricultural Holdings Act. The noble Viscount had an Amendment a line or two lower on the Paper, and he thought it covered the same point. If the noble Earl preferred those words he was quite willing not to move his Amendment, and to make way for the noble Viscount.
EARL CARRINGTON: If the noble Lord is willing to agree to that I will accept Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not move my Amendment.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN:moved an Amendment to make additional provision for the protection of the holding from injury or deterioration in respect of the use of manures.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 27, after the word 'used' to insert the words 'or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, in moving a new sub-section, to the effect that in the application of the clause to Scotland the expression "arable land" should not include land in grass which, by the terms of any contract of tenancy was to be retained in the same condition throughout the tenancy, said the Amendment was one which had a peculiar application to Scotland, and was absolutely necessary for that part of the kingdom. "Arable land" in Clause 3 was clearly used in contradistinction to permanent pasture. Permanent pasture in England was safeguarded under this clause. In Scotland the system was different. A great deal of the grass land, which was laid down for many years in grass, was taken at times in rotation with the arable land. It was one of the things imposed upon Scottish landowners—he would not say wrongly imposed—that when pasture was laid down the tenant should be compensated for it. That was settled law, and was on the whole quite fair. But if the landowner had paid compensation for pasture land to one tenant, he ought to be protected against another man ploughing it up and then laying it down again at the end of his lease making his landlord pay for it again. The matter seemed to him a very simple one, and one of elementary justice, and he hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 27, after 'used,' to insert the words '(5) In the application of this section to Scotland the expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass, which by the terms of any contract of tenancy, is to he retained it the same conditior throughout the tenancy."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped that it would not be supposed because he supported this Amendment that he was an Irishman, although from the terms

579
it might fairly be supposed it had been drawn by an Irishman. The Amendment said "The expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass." It sounded curious, but he assured their Lordships that in Scotland this Amendment would have a very practical application, and he hoped the noble Earl (who, he knew, had Scottish connections) would so far sympathise with Scottish landowners as to accept it.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am perfectly ready to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, on the condition that it shall apply not only to Scotland, but also to Great Britain. This we could do if the Committee would permit, by the omission of the words "in the application of this section to Scotland. "The sub-section would then read—
"In this section the expression 'arable laud' shall not include land in grass,"
and so on.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he was quite willing to accept that.
The Earl of WEMYSS,in moving the insertion of a new sub-section to ensure the keeping of a record of the course of cropping, said he had already explained to their Lordships that the Amendments standing in his name were Amendments proposed by a committee of landowners and land agents. That committee thought it necessary for the protection of the holding, that a provision such as this should be inserted. He would not trouble their Lordships with any speech in support of it, but he believed it would be a very useful provision, and he also believed that it would have a most valuable educational effect upon the farmer, because it would make him very anxious about the proper keeping of his books. Those books would have to be open to the inspection of the agents, and would have to be very well kept, and he thought that would have considerable educational value.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 27, after the word 'used' to insert the following new sub-section:—'(4) To ensure the protection of the holding, the tenant shall keep a record of the course of cropping in every year, and shall furnish a copy of such record to the landlord or his agent duly authorised in that behalf yearly at Michaelmas. On any change of tenancy the outgoing tenant shall furnish to the landlord, or his agent authorised as aforesaid, such vouchers, books and documents as may be necessary to prove what manures and feeding stuffs have been brought, and used upon the holding during the previous five years, and also what home-grown produce has been consumed thereon during that period."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I am glad to be able to meet the noble Earl because there is nothing to prevent a landlord insisting on these requirements, if he considers them necessary or essential for his protection. These are matters which should be subject to agreement between the parties rather than a statutory obligation, and I think we are all of the same mind. I am happy to be able to meet the noble Lord, and to assure him that what he wishes is in the Bill already.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: Where?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDthought the Committee ought to have some assurance as to what part of the Bill the provision was in.
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the Committee will accept my assurance that it is in the Bill. I can absolutely pledge myself as to that.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that there would be no harm in putting it twice in the Bill, and afterwards on the Report Stage striking it out in one place if it appeared that it had been inserted twice over.
EARL CARRINGTON: I agree to that.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out sub-seetion (4)."
LORD CLINTONsaid he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the result of the division on the Duke of Richmond's Amendment. He knew it was the intention of the noble Duke, as well as the, intention of himself and others who had followed him into the lobby, that the Amendment in question should apply to long leases—nineteen-year leases. But the actual result appeared to be that it would apply to leases of any duration. Consequently it was in the power of any landowner who gave notice to his tenants to accept a four years lease, to contract himself entirely out of the provision. No doubt the result would be exceedingly good as far as the landowners were concerned, but it was not the intention of many who voted for the provision, their intention being that it should apply to nineteen years leases. He believed he would not be in order in moving an Amendment now, but he wished to draw attention to it, and if necessary he should move again when the matter came up on Report.

Clause 4:—
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that there was an Amendment down by Lord Egerton to strike out the whole of the clause down to line 9, on page 4, but if that were done it would exclude a number of Amendments which came after it. Under those circumstances, perhaps, the noble Lord would not move the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that the first words of the clause should be put to the Committee.
*EARL EGERTON:moved to leave out the whole of the clause except the provision relating to arbitration. He said the reason of his proposing the Amendment was in order to carry out several suggestions made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He had only to say that there was no intention on his part to create dual ownership such as existed in Ireland, but he thought it was
582
the opinion of many agriculturists, both landlords and tenants, that it was very undesirable that in this Bill there should be any clause which would appear to be the thin end of the wedge for the purpose of introducing dual ownership into the tenure of land in this country. The clause was almost, if not entirely, identical with that which appeared in the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill; and he thought it was a bad precedent that they should, word for word, introduce into an English Land Act a clause which was thought necessary to be introduced into an Irish Tenants Land Bill. It appeared to him the clause should either be amended so as to meet the object that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had in view, or else that it should be expunged from the Bill altogether. He had endeavoured to meet the noble Lord's view by the Amendment which he proposed. They were Amendments which limited the occasions where compensation for disturbance should be given. There were cases in which good landlords would recognise the justice of giving compensation to tenants, but that only applied where the tenant himself had done something for which he had received no compensation from the landlord, and where, if the landlord was a bad landlord, he had perhaps given the tenant notice to quit. The next case was where there was an impecunious landlord, and where the tenant, after asking the landlord to do certain repairs and improvements, and giving him due notice, had not induced him to carry out those repairs and improvements which he thought necessary for the good cultivation of the farm, and had, therefore, done them himself. In that case he thought it would be only fair that the tenant should receive some compensation. But he would limit this compensation for disturbance to those two distinct objects, and he was supported in that view by the recommendation of the Royal Commission which sat in 1897. Their Report stated that they had received ample evidence as to compensation for disturbance, and were of opinion that they could give "no countenance to the demand that a quitting tenant who has received the compensation due to him for his unexhausted improvements should be enabled to maintain a

583
claim for compensation for disturbance." He agreed with the opinion of the Land Agents' Society that if this clause were to pass as it stood, it would only create a great deal of litigation and bad feeling between landlord and tenant. The object of their lordships, he was sure, must be to prevent any undue litigation, and any undue expense on the part of the tenants. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had said that he only wished to go so far as to protect good tenants from a possible, but very rare, bad landlord. He was not at liberty now to go into the clause itself, but if it was carried at all in its present shape it ought to be very much limited, because in many cases a tenant, who might be a butcher, or following some other trade, might get a quantity of stock on his farm, whether for sale or whether for milk selling, or for any other purpose, in far greater quantity than the size of his Holding would justify the provision by the landlord of accommodation for those animals. It was quite clear, therefore, that it would be very unfair that if such a man left he should be compensated for the whole of the stock which had accumulated on his farm in connection with his trade, whether as a farmer, or a butcher, or otherwise. It was quite clear, therefore, that the noble Lord, if the clause were to stand as it was, would have to see that some provision was made for cases such as that. He thought himself that if the noble Lord could only consider the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, he would see that it met all the reasonable requirements of good tenants who had suffered, or might suffer, from bad landlords, and it would be quite clear that there was no general law or no general right for compensation for disturbance unless the tenant had a fair claim for compensation from his landlord for what he had done, either in improving his farm, or in cases where the land lord had refused to carry out improvements. He trusted that their Lord ships would say that his contentions were not unreasonable, and that the matter would be very carefully considered before their Lordships consented to an entirely new principle, and one which was not accepted by the great majority of either landlords or tenants in the country.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, to leave out from line 35 to end of line 8 on page 4, and insert the words 'A tenant, except as is hereinafter provided, shall not be entitled to compensation for disturbance, after receiving notice from the landlord, upon quitting the holding in addition to the compensation, if any, to which he may be entitled in respect of improvements. Provided that—(a) Where the landlord has demanded an increase of rent, and that such increase of rent was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding due to improvements executed by the tenant, and from which he has not either directly or indirectly received an equivalent, from the landlord, and in consequence of that demand has given notice to quit; (b) Where the tenant has executed repairs or improvements in the farm or buildings which are by custom or covenanted by agreement to be carried out by the landlord for the proper cultivation or working of the holding, and which the landlord has failed to execute within a reasonable time after receiving due notice: the tenant shall be entitled to compensation for the loss he sustains or expense which he has incurred in consequence of any such outlay on his farm or buildings, and for which he has not received any adequate return or compensation by the landlord."—(Earl Egerton.)
LORD CLONBROCKsaid he perfectly understood the jealousy with which the noble Earl was prepared to scrutinise any provision relating to compensation for disturbance, and he thought he and all noble Lords in this country would do well to take it to heart. When the Land Act of Ireland of 1870 was passed, and that provision for compensation for disturbance was first introduced, they were assured that that conveyed no property to the tenant. Some years afterwards they were told that, whether Parliament intended it or not, it did convey a property in the holding to the tenant, and it was found necessary to secure that property to the tenant by fixity of tenure and free sale; and the end had been the introduction of dual ownership, which he thought every noble Lord must be most anxious to guard against in the case of England.
EARL CARRINGTON: I most sincerely hope the noble Earl will not persevere in this Amendment, because, practically speaking, if this proposal was carried, there would hardly be any compensation for disturbance at all, and I hope that the Committee will pardon me for a moment if I say that, all the way through from the very beginning, from

585
the moment the Government undertook the charge of this Bill, I have honestly and sincerely tried in every possible way consistent with the great principles of the Bill in which I most thoroughly believe, to meet any objections—and there have been many reasonable objections—that have been made by the Party opposite. I confess I am very grateful for the way in which my humble efforts have been met, and I am grateful to Mr. Walter Long, when he advised his Party in the House of Commons not to divide against the Third Reading, for the words he was good enough to use as to the manner in which the Opposition had been met. I am speaking under correction, but I think I can honestly say that there is no serious official objection to the Bill. At one time there was, I honestly confess, a good deal of objection, official and unofficial, to the Bill. I saw at once that there were two clauses which your Lordships would not pass—there was the shooting clause, for instance, and also the fruit-cropping clause. I gave way on both of those heads; I induced my friends in the House of Commons to give way, not without some difficulty as regards the shooting clause, because the Members representing the Eastern Counties of England were very positive that that was a necessary clause. Then came Clause 7, when we gave up the permanent pasture, and we gave up the planting of orchards, which I acknowledge was very difficult to defend, as a cranky-headed tenant might take advantage of those conditions to run the landlord into considerable expense. I gave way over that; then the pound of flesh was insisted on, and then came the question of strawberries and asparagus (Laughter.) I really am glad to hear the noble Lords opposite laugh over this, because it did seem straining it a little too much. After all, strawberries were only a two-years crop, and it seemed a little bit hard to prevent the farmers supplementing their income by growing strawberries. However, I gave way on that, and that strained the loyalty of the Radical Party to the utmost. It was more than my friends and supporters would stand. I had the great privilege of sitting in the other House of Parliament, like Mahomet's coffin in the place re-
586
served for your Lordships in that House, and I saw 150 of my very best and staunchest friends trooping into the opposite lobby, and making 300 votes on a division when the Government majority fell to the very dangerous and lilliputian number of seventy. That was a very strong indication of the feeling which resulted from my having to give way. But I understand now that the Leaders of the Opposition take no serious official objection to the principle of the Bill as it stands, and I am the more encouraged in that impression, because it was not long ago that the Somersetshire farmers met in conclave, and a certain gentleman, a very strong Conservative, and a great supporter of Sir Arthur Acland-Hood, whom he took somewhat severely to task, and told him that he considered he ought to have supported the Bill as it stood. Sir Arthur Acland-Hood gave him permission to say that he and Mr. Walter Long—and I believe this is correct—had been two of the great factors in getting the Bill through the House, and that the House of Lords, would pass it. One is always told not to prophesy unless one knows, but I suppose that the Chief Conservative Whip has an amount of knowledge which other people do not possess; and he spoke, I suppose, from knowledge of what was going to take place. After discussion, the meeting approved of the provisions of the Bill except one small clause about which I need not detain your Lordships. Then I am still further encouraged, because the Ripon farmers met two or three days ago, and gave general approval to the Bill. Lord Helmsley, who has deservedly made a great name for himself in the House of Commons, was one of the principal antagonists, and a very doughty one, of the Bill, and I am glad to say that the noble Lord stated that his opinion about the Bill was that it would not do any great good, but it certainly would not do any great harm. From my point of view that is extremely satisfactory so far as it goes. Lord Helmsley went a little further, and said that the compensation for disturbance clause—which has been somewhat roughly treated, I must admit, by the noble Earl on the other side of the House—has been so

587
amended that in the opinion of legal experts there is no trace of dial ownership in it. I think under those conditions I can ask the noble Lord opposite not to press his Amendment. The dual ownership bogey has been disposed of by Lord Helmsley himself and, besides, I may once more say to the noble Earl that this Bill is in no way designed to meet such cases as exist on the noble Lord's estate. If this clause is carried, it scarcely gives any compensation at all. Naturally, I cannot accept his Amendment as it stands. I hope the Committee will not accept it either, because it rules out an enormous number of other Amendments which have been placed on the Paper by noble Lords. All I have to say is that the evil against which the clause as it stands is directed is of a much wider character. It would be inconsistent to limit the payment of compensation to the particular circumstances to which Lord Egerton referred in his statement, and I most respectfully and earnestly hope that the noble Lord will not persist in his Amendment, but will allow the clause as it stands to be debated and to stand or fall on its merits.
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he did not imagine that their Lordships in considering the clause would be biassed, as the noble Earl seemed to expect, either by the views of youthful, though able, Members of the other House, or by any opinion which might be inadvertently expressed by even older Members of the other House as to the action which their Lordships might take with reference to this Bill. What their Lordships had to consider—and it was a very serious matter—was whether there was such mischief in this clause as to cause it to merit the observations of the noble Lords who had already addressed the Committee, and whether, if it were passed, it would really do any serious harm to landlords in its present form. Perhaps no one would have criticised this clause more strongly than himself had it come to their Lordships' House in its original shape. In that shape it was distinctly a compensation for disturbance clause—a clause calculated, and he believed intended, to introduce
588
into England the principle of the Irish law as to compensation for disturbance, and to apply that principle to tenancies of a very different nature from those to which it was originally applied in Ireland. But in its passage through the House of Commons the clause had been very considerably modified, and he doubted whether any clause in any Bill had ever been subjected to greater modifications in its passage through the Lower House. As the clause now stood, it was not, to his mind, a compensation for disturbance clause in the sense attributed to it by the noble Lord, Lord Pembroke. He did not see how any germ of dual ownership could possibly be found in this clause, because all it did in its present form was to provide that if a landlord, without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, gave his tenant notice to quit, then compensation should be given to the tenant, limited to the loss which the tenant incurred in the sale or removal of his goods or stock. The question whether the provisions of the clause were sufficiently definite to limit it as it should fairly be limited, was one which their Lordships could consider in dealing with the clause at a later stage; but assuming that those points were satisfactorily settled, and that proceedings under the clause were entrusted to a proper tribunal, which he thought, from an Amendment which the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture had himself placed on the Paper, their Lordships would be able to arrange, he did not see that the operation of the clause would do injustice to any landlord. His noble friend Lord Egerton had proposed a clause giving compensation for disturbance: He (Viscount St. Aldwyn) did not like those words, and did not think they ought to be in the clause at all, but those were the noble Lord's words. He proposed to give compensation for disturbance in two cases only—where a landlord had demanded an increase of rent owing to the tenant's improvements, and where the tenant had executed repairs which the landlord had contracted to do, and had not done, but which were essential for the cultivation of the farm. If, under those circumstances, a tenant received notice to quit,

589
then, according to his noble friend, he ought to be entitled to compensation for disturbance. His noble friend limited the compensation to the tenant to the loss he sustained or the expense he incurred in consequence of any such outlay, and did not extend it to any loss sustained, or expense incurred, by reason of removal. That was a different proposal altogether. He could not feel that those two cases included all the cases in which a tenant would fairly be entitled to some kind of compensation for his loss from removal, if he received notice to quit without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. It had been said by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture that there were very few bad landlords. That was quite true. It had also been said that there were some bad tenants, and that likewise was true. But there were cases, he was afraid it must be admitted, where landlords had capriciously given notice to the tenant to the loss of the tenant, and those cases would not be covered by the words of his noble friend Lord Egerton. Their Lordships, he knew, were disinterested in the matter. He did not believe that a single Member of their Lordships' House would come under the operation of that clause, and he believed that very few landlords in England would come under its operation. The clause might act, and he hoped would act, as a deterrent to bad landlords'(if there were any such) giving their tenants notice to quit without good and sufficient cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management. He did not believe there was any mischief in this clause as it stood, but was there nothing in it which, by meeting a grievance, might prevent much more mischievous legislation? He know that there were many persons in the country who desired to see established some kind of dual ownership between landlord and tenant, and he, for one, did not want any excuse given to such persons to try and establish such a relationship. They had it from His 'Majesty's Ministers that this Bill contained all that they desired in the way of altering the relations between landlord 'And tenant. If that were so he
590
would humbly advise their Lordships to I leave the matter as it stood in this Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDhardly know whether they were quire in order in their proceedings. They had had an eloquent speech from the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture upon the merits of the Bill at large, and the clause in particular, which he should have thought would have come more appropriately upon the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. He did not propose to follow the example of the noble Lord, but he would venture to intrude a few remarks upon their Lordships in what he thought the more proper place, namely, when the question was put whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. He only rose now to call attention to what had been said by the Viscount St. Aldwyn, and I he thought too early attention could not be called to it. The noble Lord had said, in answer to Lord Clonbrock, I that there was no question of dual ownership raised by this clause. He was rather struck, however, by what the noble Lord had quoted of the clause. He had quoted it only down to a certain point, "where a landlord without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management I terminates an agreement," and there he I had stopped. But there were other words in the clause, "or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy." That was an entirely new principle introduced into the legislation of this country and it 'seemed to him to be very much in the nature of the thin end of the wedge of dual ownership. What possible logical justification there could be for demanding that a man should receive compensation for the want of renewal of an agreement which had reached the limit agreed to by himself when he entered upon it, he could not conceive. He did not want to elaborate the point at that stage, but when a statement was made that there was nothing in this clause which related or referred to dual ownership, he could not help thinking that the earliest opportunity ought to be taken to point out one very serious sentence

591
included in the clause, which many noble Lords seemed entirely to forget, and which changed, as it seemed to him, the whole system of legislation, and initiated a new idea which might have very serious consequences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he did not understand that the noble Duke who had just spoken recommended their Lordships to accept the Amendment which had been submitted to them.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Certainly not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that although he spoke with the greatest diffidence on a subject of this kind—because he was in no sense an authority on agricultural subjects—yet he shared with the noble Duke, and with his noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, the view that their Lordships ought not to accept this Amendment. But in taking that view he did not do so altogether for the reasons which had been advanced. He thought it was right that they should look facts in the face, and in his opinion I this clause was a serious new departure in the legislation of this country. He felt that on subjects of this kind their Lordships could not be too cautious in what they did. Many of them were great authorities on agricultural questions, but at the same time—he said this with great respect to their Lordships—they were personally and pecuniarily interested in the question; and although he for one could never imagine for a moment that they could be swayed by considerations of that kind, yet there were others who did not take that view, and that consideration was, he thought, sufficient to justify him in saying to their Lordships that he hoped they would not seriously mutilate this clause in Committee. Let them consider the clause for a moment. No one admired more than he did the skill and persistence with which those with whom he was associated were successful in the House of Commons in forcing upon a Government numerically far stronger than themselves the amendments which this clause had undergone. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had given a
592
pathetic account of the difficulties which the Government themselves had had to face in dealing with their Radical supporters. Undoubtedly in the House of Commons the Radical tail of the Government was the most important section there, and it was extraordinarily to the credit of the Opposition that they were able, notwithstanding the power of that Radical tail, to change the clause so much as they had succeeded in changing it. The clause was very vague, but notwithstanding its vagueness it did interfere, to put it in that modest way, with the control of the landlord over his property, and in so doing it diminished the landlord's property, and, he supposed, transferred it to someone else. That was a very serious matter. He had said that the clause was very vague; it all depended on the interpretation of those words "good and sufficient cause "and" reason inconsistent with good estate management." He did not know exactly what those words meant, but they would be interpreted by the arbitrator or whatever authority their Lordships ultimately put into the Bill. The noble Lord proposed to strike out these words I and put the clause in the inverse way, and to say the compensation should only accrue for definite and not I for indefinite reasons. If he had thought their Lordships' House was quite free in this matter he should have been inclined to support the Amendment, if his noble friend put the clause as it stood, because what "good estate management "might precisely mean depended upon the individual opinion of the arbitrator. He did not look at this matter from the selfish point of view of a landlord or the landlord class. The class in which he was interested was the labouring class which lived on landlords' estates through-out the country. The preamble of the Bill was going out, he did not quite know why, except that he presumed it was no longer pertinent to the Bill. But he would like to ask the noble Earl how it ever got into the Bill. In the preamble there was a reference to the interests of the rural labouring classes and the community generally, and it was because he thought that this clause would interfere with the interests of the rural labouring class that he regretted that the noble Earl and the

593
Government were not able to accept the Amendment. It appeared to him that it was in the best interests of their Lordships' House that the interests of the rural labouring class living on the estates of the landlords of England should be safeguarded. He had had a certain amount of experience on this matter. But let him say he was not going into the subject in detail, first because he did not desire to go into the matter at any length, and secondly because it would hardly be germane to the Bill. ["Hear, hear."] He was much obliged for the applause of the junior members of the Government, but still he submitted that the terms of this clause interfered with the landlord's power of doing justice to the labourers who lived on his estate. It was a matter deserving of the consideration of their Lordships, and especially of those noble Lords whose political creeds were full of professions that they were always interested in studying the condition of the labouring classes. Was it not true to say that such a clause as this would seriously hamper small holdings? He would not go into the matter in detail, but whether the land could be readily made available for small holdings would depend on the view taken by the valuer of "good estate management." If the arbitrator said these small holdings were foolish; that they would not pay; that to destroy a good farm in a particular part of the country in order to establish small holdings could only lead to pecuniary loss; and that it would certainly not be in the interests of good estate management; the landlords might take a different view, but they must remember the answer to that question depended on the view taken by the arbitrator. It did not depend upon legal evidence but upon what, in the opinion of the arbitrator, was good estate management. He did not attribute much importance to the words "good and sufficient cause," because good and sufficient cause was also a matter of opinion. He would give one further illustration with regard to the cottagers who lived on the estates of the landlords of England. It had been said in this debate that most landlords were good and that most tenants were good. He cordially re-echoed that state-
594
ment. He believed it was perfectly I true. It was his experience at any rate. But it was also correspondingly true that a few landlords were not good, and that a few tenants were not good. He would take the ease of a tenant who did not treat the cottagers living on his I holding properly. To whom did the cottagers look to assist them in such a contingency? He would give their Lordships one example, and he gave it because he knew it to be a fact. A certain poor man established on a farm on the borders of a village a small wheelwright's shop. He was sub-tenant of the farmer. The farmer turned out a horse into a field near this cottage. The horse was in very bad condition and evidently in great suffering. Eventually the farmer was summoned by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The sub-tenant I was summoned as a witness against the farmer at the police court, and as he was bound to do, gave evidence, so far as he (the Marquess of Salisbury) knew, in I accordance with the truth. It was adverse to the farmer, and immediately after the case was decided the farmer gave his sub-tenant notice to quit. The subtenant appealed to the landlord and the landlord was able, by the power he possessed under the present law, to say he would not allow the sub-tenant to be evicted. He was able to do that by the power of the sanction behind the present law, but whether he would be able to do that after this Bill was passed was very doubtful. What was the power of the sanction behind the present law? Clearly it was the fact that the landlord had power to say "If you turn this poor man out and will not do justice to him I shall have to turn you out of your holding." It appeared to him to be a very strong measure to injure the power of the landlord under these circumstances. It would certainly appear to be very doubtful whether the landlord would be justified in that proceeding in the opinion of the arbitrator, because he would say "What is good estate management? Is it good estate management to evict a large farmer because a small cottager has been evicted from his cottage in one corner of the farm?" It was quite possible the arbitrator would say "we have nothing to do with the sub-tenant. Good estate management would dictate to the

595
landlord not to take action of this kind," and in that way the power of the landlord on his estate would be very seriously infringed. He did not wish to put it too high, but at this time of day, when the landlords were most anxious to defend the labouring classes on their land, it was a great pity that such a clause should be passed into law. Would the Government consider the possibility of introducing words which would at any rate safeguard a case of the kind to which he had drawn attention? Would they put into the preamble such words as would protect the labourers from the possibility of injustice by restoring to the landlords their power in this matter? He did not say that even that would entirely reconcile him to the clause. But it would go some way, in his humble judgment, to diminish the evils from which these people in whom they were interested and who lived upon their land, might suffer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid he would promise, at all events, not to range over the rather sombre landscape of country life that the noble Lord who had just sat down had shown them. He moved the omission of the words "and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, "because he thought they were either meaningless or inconvenient. If they were meaningless then they were mere surplusage, and their omission would do no harm. If they were inconvenient as, if he were put to it, he was prepared to prove, they were better out of the Bill. The main ground upon which he thought they were inconvenient was this. It was a mere truism to say that the way in which the meaning of an Act of Parliament was expressed should be in the bluntest possible English capable of being understood even by the village idiots. Most of their Lordships were acquainted with business as it was done in the Committee rooms upstairs. The clauses of a Bill which came before a Committee upstairs were not subjected to the cross-currents or under-currents of politics. They were invariably considered from the point of view of £s. d., and in the Committee the eminent counsel engaged were the first
596
people to help the Committee to strikeout those phrases of an ornamental character which were put in. to give dignity and stateliness to the clause, but which, if not meaningless, were inconvenient. He did not know whether these words in the clause were an alternative to a "good and sufficient cause," whether it was another prima facie ground on which the tenant might claim, or whether they were coupled by the word "and" and were therefore a reinforcement of "good and sufficient cause. "However that might be, he believed they invited the tenant to consider whether his landlord was capable of "good estate management." He was sure the noble Lord never intended that the tenant was to become the judge of whether his landlord was managing his estate in a proper manner. It might be said that no tenant would be such a fool as to take up a case of this kind, but their Lordships knew that both landlord and tenant were very often, if not fools, very pig-headed where land was concerned. That being so he hoped that both landlord and tenant would be robbed, by the omission of these words, of the mischievous source of a very possible inconvenience. The whole thing in his opinion was covered by the words "good and sufficient cause." He should be prepared, except that personal experience was very tiresome, to show in his own person, and in the case of some one else, where words such as these might cause great inconvenience.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 36, to leave out the words 'and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management."—(Lord Ribblesdale.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he quite agreed with his noble friend that the words put into this clause were open to a good many objections, therefore he would like to state to their Lordships what was the effect of the words which it was now proposed to strike out. They were arrived at after a considerable amount of care, and the Government were informed by their technical advisers that the words "good estate management" were to enable any landlord to act in relation to his property in the manner in which a prudent trustee would act. That was to say, he was to be absolutely free to take a farm back into his own hands

597
where he wanted to subdivide it for any purpose, or where he considered the farm to have been badly managed, or where he could get, whether by division or from another tenant, a better rent to be paid by a solvent tenant. The reason why these words had been put in was to protect the landlord and to ensure that he should not be liable for any claim for compensation if he administered the estate well and as a good man of business. The whole intention of this clause was only to operate in cases which, though they might not be numerous, might occur among many people—in what he might call cases of capricious disturbance. Lord Ribblesdale had asked why the words "without good and sufficient cause" would not be sufficient in themselves and why it was necessary to insert the words he proposed now to omit? The point was this. It had been assumed that a Landlord might wish to take possession of a farm, presumably a farm which had been occupied by a tenant and his family for a great number of years, to put perhaps his son, who might have, a fancy for farming, into it, or for some other purely family reasons. Under circumstances of that kind, which would hardly come under what might be called "good estate management"—because possibly the transference of a farm from a good tenant to the son of the house would not be "good estate management"—it did not seem to the Government it was either inequitable or unfair that the tenant should receive compensation limited and restricted as it was in this clause. Those were the reasons the Government were unable to strike out those words.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved to insert after the word "terminates" the words "by notice to quit." He said that this was a drafting Amendment to make the matter clear, to which he supposed there would be no objection. The tenancy terminated when the notice to quit had expired. His intention in moving the Amendment was that there should be a period of time during which the tenant might consider whether he would be entitled to claim for compensation under this clause, and if the claim was
598
made the landlord might have an opportunity of considering whether he would withdraw his notice to quit.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 37, after the word 'terminates' to insert the words 'by notice to quit."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he would like to ask, in order to raise the question of rights, whether in the case of a lease it was necessary to give notice. If his noble friend's Amendment were put in, the clause would read—
"Where the landlord, without good and sufficient cause, andfor reasons inconsistent with good estate management, terminates by notice to quit or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy."
EARL HARRINGTON: I quite see the necessity for the Amendment and accept it.
EARL CARRINGTON: I propose my next Amendment in order to give effect to the suggestion that the landlord should know within a reasonable time whether or not the tenant desires a renewal of the tenanty. I think it is a fair and reasonable suggestion, and I hope the Committee will accept it. The clause will then read—
"Where the landlord without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent I with good estate management terminates or after having been requested in writing at least six months before the expiration of the tenancy to grant a renewal of the tenancy refuses to do so, or etc."
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 37, after the first 'or' to insert the words 'after having been requested in writing at least six months before the expiration of the tenancy to grant a renewal of the tenancy', and leave out the words 'grant a renewal of the tenancy' and insert the words 'do so."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERsaid he apprehended that it was not supposed that the tenant was only to give six months notice that he did not intend to keep on his tenancy. That would be inconvenient, because although tenancies expire at Michaelmas it was usual for the incoming tenant to take over the

599
follows in March. Under this Amendment all the tenant need do would be to give notice at Lady Day and quit at Michaelmas.
EARL CARRINGTON: I will look into that question, if the noble Lord will allow me, between this and Report.
A NOBLE LORDsaid it seemed to him in the case of a lease six months notice would be too short.
Earl CARRINGTON: There is no notice in a lease, it simply terminates.
A NOBLE LORDsaid there was a year's notice given as to whether the tenant was going to continue the lease or to quit.
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERasked whether, in the case of a ten years agreement or a lease in which the tenant had a right of breaking it at any time by giving two years notice, that tenant was to have a right to break the agreement or lease with six months notice.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it would seem that in the case of a yearly tenancy the tenant would be compelled once in every year to give notice that he wished to continue his tenancy. He apprehended that an annual tenancy ran on until a notice to quit was given on either side, and the introduction of an Amendment of this kind would compel him to give notice every year.
EARL CARRINGTON: I see there is a great deal of objection on several sides to this Amendment, and I promise to look into this matter between this and Report. I withdraw the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HYLTONmoved after the word "tenancy" to insert the words "to the sitting tenant." He put down those words in order to receive, as he trusted they would, an assurance from the Government that the words "renewal of the tenancy" meant to the sitting tenant. If they were
600
not informed upon that point by the Government, there was no doubt litigation would arise and the question would be asked whether, on the death of a tenant and the tenancy was refused to his son or his widow or his executors, the penalties of this clause were not to be inflicted against the landlord. He thought it was very important their Lordships should have an assurance from the Government on that point.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 37, after the word 'tenancy' to insert the words 'to the sitting tenant."—(Lord Hylton.)
EARL CARRINGTON: The word "renewal" can only mean to the sitting tenant.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he had placed an Amendment on the Paper in order to raise the question of the expiry of a lease on the death of a tenant and the farm getting into the hands of the executor. It would be most unfair to the landlord in a case; of that kind for him not to be able to give notice to the executor under this clause without a claim being made against him. He did not think that was the intention of the Government. Would the Government accept the words he had put down?
EARL CARRINGTON: I will accept them now and put them in later on the Report.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid if the noble Lord would permit the Amendment to be put in the words of the noble Viscount it would be more convenient.
On question, Amendment negatived.
EARL CARRINGTONthis Amendment is a drafting Amendment which I ask the Committee to read with the two immediately following it. The clause will then read—
"Or it is proved that an increase of rent has been demanded from the tenant and that such increase was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding duo to improvements which have been executed by or at the cost of the tenant, and for which he has not, either directly or indirectly, received an equivalent from the landlord, etc."
Amendments moved—
"In page 3, line 38, to leave out the second 'is' and to insert the words 'has been."
"In line 39, to leave out the words 'as the result of' and insert the words 'and that such increase was demanded by reason of an increase in the value of the holding due to."
"In lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words 'effected at the cost of 'such' and insert the words 'executed by or at the cost of the."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether there was any difference in the meaning of the words "effected at the cost of" and "executed by or at the cost of." He only wanted to know why the noble Lord proposed to strike out the words "effected at the cost of" for the purpose of inserting. "executed by or at the cost of."
Earl CARRINGTON: They are only drafting Amendments in order to make the clause more easy to understand.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he did not propose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. It was down in the name of other noble Lords and if they chose to they might move it. He had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to apply this clause fairly to the circumstances of Scotland where long leases and tenancies were in effect. He, therefore, was not prepared to take the responsibility of making it apply to Scotland and to a system to which it could not be fairly applied.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid while he had the greatest possible desire to make the Bill a workable Bill he did not see how it could be done. Who was going to say what the value of the sale was, and what the value of the cattle was. The mere accident of a wet day or another sale being on the same day, the holding of a market or some other reason, might prejudice the sale very much, and cause a man to be £100 short of what he thought he ought to get at that sale. Why should the landlord have to suffer for that? It was not his fault if it was a wet day. There might be such a thing as a "knock out" sale. Who was to say what was the loss? Was the tenant after the sale was over? If a
602
tenant said his cattle were worth £15 a head and he got £12 a head, were they, because it was a wet day and the butchers did not attend the sale, to take the valuation from the tenant? It was impossible to put the loss on sale on the landlord. Then again there was the question of implements. It was quite true that at a sale very often the outgoing tenant sold very cheap, but then he went to other sales in the neighbourhood to which he had gone and bought very cheap. He did not see how the Bill was to be made workable or how the loss on sale was to be arrived at unless the valuation of the tenant was taken. Therefore, he suggested the striking out of the words "loss or" with a view to omitting the words "of the sale" later on.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 5, to leave out the words 'loss or."—(Viscount Galway.)
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH,who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, supported what Lord Galway had said. It certainly seemed unreasonable that the landlord should be made responsible for the loss that a tenant sustained at sale. He thought the words should be taken out of the clause.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that while he listened to Lord Galway he thought the noble Lord had failed to appreciate the effect of two Amendments the Government had lower down upon the Paper in which they proposed after the word "expense" to insert "directly attributable to his quitting the holding" and after the word "tenant" to add the words "may unavoidably incur." It was not the intention of this clause that there should be any selection or temptation on the part of the tenant under the circumstances to make a profit by having a bogus sale, and then claiming compensation for loss. The Government were informed that the insertion of these words "directly attributable to his quitting the holding" would limit the compensation to a reasonable amount as compensation for the expense which he might unavoidably incur. The arbitrator in

603
estimating a case of damage was not to allow a fancy value, or an excessive value for fancy reasons, and the tenant was not to be compensated if he had not taken care to see that his sale was under the best conditions.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYadmitted that the noble Lord had done his best to answer Lord Yarborough, but he did not think he had quite succeeded. The question of these sales was one that had created a considerable amount of apprehension in the minds of the landowners in the country for the reason that nobody had yet declared who was to be the arbitrator to decide the amount to be paid. Lord Galway with great truth had declared that it was quite possible that owing to various circumstances the result of a sale might from the tenant's point of view be of an adverse character; that financially it might be a sale which would be considered detrimental to the interest of the vendor. Then, again, there might be such a thing as a bogus sale in which a "knock out" might take place to benefit those of the surrounding district. What he wished to; know was who was to fix the value between what these effects fetched at the sale and that which they ought to have fetched under favourable circumstances So far as he personally was concerned there was nobody more fortunate in his tenants than he, and he gave them credit for doing their best, but if a bribe was held out for a man to have a bad sale, with the knowledge that the difference between what his effects fetched and what they ought to have fetched was to be paid by the landlord, he would not care whether his sale was good or bad. He wanted to know upon what basis the compensation which the tenant was to get was to be fixed. When this Amendment was before: the other House the Solicitor-General for Scotland, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that if a tenant chose an unfavourable time for his sale the arbitrator might very likely award him nothing. But that was only an opinion. He thought their Lordships had a right to have something more than the opinion of a law officer. They had a right to say that the Government should define in
604
black and white the basis on which the difference was to be arrived at, and that they should give some idea of what was meant by "loss or expense."
LORD SALTOUNsaid there was no definition of the term "loss. "It might be that no loss resulted from the sale of the stock. But the word "loss" included apparently furniture, implements, cattle, and everything else the man possessed, end it might easily be that a tenant would find it easier and cheaper to have a sale of his beasts instead of moving them. He thought there should be some strong restriction on the word "loss" and also on the amount for which the landlord was liable for removal of stock. If the Minister for Agriculture would give some indication that this matter should be looked into it would in his opinion be of great advantage.
EARL CARRINGTON: There is a great deal of force in what the noble Lord has said, but I think the argument would have been doubly strong if the sale was backed by the action of a generous land; lord. Let me bring back to your Lordships the circumstances of this sale. It is not a sale by the farmer because he has made his fortune, or wishes to change his locality. Nothing of the kind. He is sent out of his farm by his landlord, who "for reasons inconsistent with good estate management" evicts his tenant. He does not want to go, but he is sent into the world for some reason he has either shot a hare or he has been inconvenient to his landlord, and he is sent away under very harsh circumstances. I think that ought to be taken into consideration, and I think your Lordships would be disposed to treat a man under these circumstance in a fair and honest manner. If a man who has been for no fault of his own removed from his farm, has a sale, and it is a very wet day, it is an extremely bad sale, the landlord ought in common justice not to let the loss of that sale fall upon the tenant. I hope that your lordships' House will treat these cases in the way in which I think they ought to be treated, in a fair and generous manner. And as regards putting it all down in black and white that is an

605
impossibility. It is not as if this was a new thing. Under the Lands Clauses Acts people had been removed from their houses for public purposes such as building railways and the like. They claim compensation. A valuer goes in and estimates what ought to be paid, and no doubt those valuers who have been accustomed to value under the Lands Clauses Acts will take the same practical common sense view of the conditions of affairs in this matter. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed because it practically gives with one hand and takes away with the other. We all want to protect the tenant against arbitrary and capricious eviction. I express the confident hope that this Amendment will not be pressed and that the law will remain as it is.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid that while the noble Lord had answered his Question he had not answered that of Lord Londonderry as to how the loss was to be adjusted. Were they to take the valuation of a discontented man?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid so far as he could make out from the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture "loss" was only another word for "gift" by a generous landlord to a tenant who was going out. That was the effect of what the noble Lord said. He said. "This was a matter in which lie asked the Committee to remember that these men were turned out by a land-lord who had behaved badly, and that under those circumstances it was quite that right he should behave generously and give him something." Was not that in other words saying that the loss was a gift.
EARL CARRINGTON: No, no.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he would leave the matter to the Committee. This point was pressed on the Second Reading, when he himself pointed out that the loss meant the difference between what the sale fetched and what the things were worth, and that at was impossible to say at any time what the things were worth. The noble Earl said it was perfectly easy; that any
606
person who was accustomed to value under the Lands Clauses Acts could do it. But the Lands Clauses Acts had no application whatever to agriculture. They dealt with land taken for a railway or some other public interest, but they had nothing to do with stock and still less to do with household furniture. The Bill as it stood was unworkable, and it could not be dealt with because it was unworkable. He hoped the noble Lord would consider this point. It was said to be the wording of the Solicitor-General. He thought there were gentlemen in the Government who would find words which a plain man could understand, and he appealed to the noble Earl to find words and bring them up on Report.
LORD HENEAGEsaid the word "loss" in this clause meant loss on sale of stock, implements, and other subjects of the sale. He asked the Committee to consider what the difference in the price of stock was in August and October this year. Those farmers who were leaving their farms and who had their sale in September sold at a loss because keep was short, but those who were able to keep on, and who did not have their sale till October, sold at a great profit. Was it, therefore, to be a question of the judgment of the tenant as to whether he would sell in September or October? If that was the case, then whatever happened the tenant would not lose. It was a mere gambling transaction, and the landlord had to pay. This question of loss on sale was perfectly ridiculous. The tenant had full notice when he was going and had to take the chance of whether he chose a good day for his sale. He fixed the day on which the sale was to take place and had to get his stock in good condition for that sale. During the last year he had seen a lot of stock sold in very bad condition, and on one occasion, at the sale of a very good tenant, the answer he received when he asked whether the tenant had not had a very bad sale was "No, "that he had had a very good sale indeed, considering the amount of grass he had for his cattle. But a few weeks after, at another sale, stock fetched far beyond the price for which it was sold on the previous occasion. Was the landlord, who had nothing to do with the fixing of the day

607
of the sale, who could not control the weather, or the markets, or the amount of cattle coming from abroad, to be the only person to suffer and not get anything if there was a good sale? He thought the words "or loss" were an absurdity.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he agreed with Lord Heneage. So far as any danger of a fraudulent sale was concerned the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord went a long way towards meeting the difficulty. But he did not think anything that had been said by the Government had met the point made by Lord Camperdown and Lord Heneage. Who was to estimate the loss? Supposing a man had a sale and got the market price of the day, what was the loss? How would that be estimated? Was a man to be compensated because he was obliged to sell at a particular date when in the course of a few weeks the value of stock might go up 10 per cent?
EARL CARRINGTON EARL CARRINGTON dissented.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the noble Lord shook his head; would he put words into the clause to show that that was not his intention? It might be impossible for the tenant to remove his stock, and under those circumstances he would not be able to vote for leaving out the words "or loss." He did not think there was very much in the words "or loss" except as applied to the words "on sale." It was a question as to the sale. Could not the noble Lord, in some way or an other, point out to the valuer the basis upon which he was to estimate the "loss on sale." Of course it could not be done now, but before the Bill left this House he honestly thought something of that kind ought to be done.
LORD HENEAGEsaid that obviously the one and only way in which this case could be met was by means of an estimate made immediately before the sale. Whether the price of stock had gone up during the past three months or had gone down, if the valuation was made immediately before the sale it would give the proper value of the
608
stock according to the experience and knowledge of the valuer who made the valuation on the day that it was sold. If some words of that sort could be introduced into this clause it would at all events guard against any loss to the landlord through the compensation being calculated upon the basis of the difference between the value of the stock three months before and on the day it was sold.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he was not an advocate of bad landlords, but so far as he understood the clause it would only operate in the case of the problematical bad landlord. He asked whether his noble friend would not consider some words which might be inserted to safeguard the landlords' interests in sales that took place under these conditions.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that this Amendment meant that the landlord was to indemnify the tenant against any loss at the sale. He was to insure that the tenant was compensated for whatever loss he made from a forced sale. It seemed to him that if a landlord was put into that position he ought also to be put into the position of seeing that the sale was a bona fide one and carried out in a bona fide manner. The arbitrator would have to make a valuation before the sale in order to find out what these things were really worth. Then it seemed to him that if a landlord were guaranteeing somebody else against a loss on sale he should have some voice in the matter to insure that the sale should be a bona fide sale. Apparently that was a matter of complete indifference to the tenant, because he was indemnified; he might arrange that there should be a family party at the sale, that his friends should buy up his things cheap, and that the landlord should pay the difference. He did not think it was reasonable to call upon the landlord to buy a number of things which he did not want, in order to prevent a knock out. If the landlord had to bear the loss he might also fairly have a say in the regulation of the sale to see that it was a proper sale on a proper day so that if the things went below a price they could be

609
bought in by him. For instance, supposing a valuer estimated the stock at £600, if one part of that stock was sold above the price put upon it by the valuer that would be the profit of the farmer, but if the other things went at a lower price it would be the loss of the landlord. That would be a fine thing for the tenant. He did not think it could be done now, but it seemed to him quite clear that between this and Report, if this duty was placed upon the landlord, some clause must be framed to enable a landlord to protect himself.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has put the case so clearly and so moderately that I shall pledge myself to meet as far as I can the wishes he has expressed. I should be very sorry if these two words "or loss" were left out, because it would undoubtedly give an impression that the House of Lords were driving a very hard bargain with the unfortunate devil who was turned out of his farm. That would not be at all a pleasant idea to get about. I pledge myself, if the noble Viscount will allow our words to stand, to do that.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment after what had been said, but he wished to put two points. A tenant might have been turned out in accordance with good estate management and for good and sufficient cause, and in that case he did not see why a landlord should pay. He hoped also that the noble Lord would remember that two sales might be going on at the same time on the same day, and if that was so he did not see why the landlord should be damnified.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
"In page 4, line 5, after the word 'expense' to insert the words 'directly, attributable to his quitting the holding."
"In line 4, leave out the words 'by reason of his quitting the holding sustains or incurs' and insert the words 'may unavoidably incur."—(Earl Carrington.)
*EARL FORTESCUEmoved to insert the word "household" before "goods,"
610
in order to make clear what was the class of goods to which this clause would apply. It was not unusual for a small farmer to carry on a small shop or public-house in addition to the farm, whilst on the other hand he knew large farmers who had traction engines and steam rollers and other things which they let out. He moved this Amendment in order to limit "goods, implements, produce, or stock," so that they should be only those belonging to the farm.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 7, after the word 'his' to insert the word 'household."—(Earl Fortescue.)
Earl CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It would give rise to all sorts of questions.
A NOBLE LORDhoped Earl Fortescue would press the Amendment because it raised the question of the stock of a man who might be in business and which stock had nothing whatever to do with his farm.
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment. I think he might leave it to the common sense of the arbitrator. I am most anxious that the idea should not get about in any way that the House of Lords is trying to reduce the amount of compensation that should be paid to the very-few people that this clause will affect.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he did not understand in the least the noble Earl's attitude upon this Amendment The noble Earl said it was a very difficult thing to decide whether a certain thing was or was not farm stock, and therefore the utmost liberty was to be given to the tenant to include as many things as possible under the name of "goods" and the landlord was to have no protection whatever. Why? Because, forsooth, it would be thought that the House of Lords was trying to drive a hard bargain and to reduce the claims for compensation. It was the first time he had ever heard a Minister use such

611
an argument as that no protection should be given to a person, because it might be difficult and rather vexatious to find out what was due to one party and the other.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid he did not wish to be unreasonable or to make it easy for a man to evict a tenant unreasonably and without good cause. But he thought it was only common sense that implements which had nothing to do with farming should not be taken into consideration.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'implements' to insert the words 'of husbandry."—(Earl Fortescue.)
EARL CARRINGTON: It is in your Lordships' hands and I will not give your Lordships the trouble of taking a division, but I do most earnestly protest against this Amendment.
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGHmoved to omit the words "produce or stock." It seemed to him that the tenant ought to be able to make arrangements for the sale of produce and stock and that the landlord should not be liable for any loss that might be entailed.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, to leave out the words 'produce or stock."—(The Earl of Yarborough.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot accept this Amendment on the general grounds which I cannot go into again, upon which I refused Lord Fortescue's Amendment.
*THE EARL OF YARBOROUGHsaid the object of his next Amendment was to limit the compensation to tenants resident on their farms. A tenant might occupy land and live in a house of his own or of another landlord. Under this clause the landlord might have to compensate the tenant for moving from that house. The tenant might set up a case that, the landlord having taken away the
612
land from him, he had been unable to get land enough else-where, with the result that he was compelled to set up another home. He thought it would be rather hard that the landlord should have to pay compensation for that. The clause applied to accommodation lands outside small parishes and also to small holdings. In the case he suggested, the tenant who resided not on the holding but on some other holding could get compensation on getting notice to quit.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8. after "implements" to insert the words 'this section shall only apply to a holding with house on it in which the tenant actually resides."—(The Earl of Yarborough.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think the noble Lord on reflection would wish to press this Amendment. He must know that there are plenty of farms and holdings on which there is no house, and it certainly would seem rather an injustice to deny to the tenant farming such a farm the benefits of this Act because either there was no house or the house was not sufficiently good for him to live in.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Amendment was badly worded and did not carry out what the noble Lord intended. As he understood his speech, what the noble Lord desired was to limit the compensation to the household goods and the farm stock and so forth on the holding in respect of which the man was tenant. Should not these words "household goods" and so forth be limited to matters that belonged to the holding from which the tenant was evicted?
EARL CARRINGTON: I understand the point now, and will make a note of it and see what can be done to meet that particular point upon Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'or' to insert the word 'farm."—(Earl Fortescue.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope this limiting Amendment will not be pressed. This is just the same limiting suggestion that we have had already. I need not go further.
*EARL FORTESCUEsaid it seemed to him that there was just as much reason for pressing this as the other.
*EARL CARRINGTON: Of course I am in your Lordships' hands.
LORD SALTOUNsaid the Amendment standing in his name was to limit the distance in regard to which compensation was to be paid for removal. There ought, undoubtedly, to be some limit, and he suggested thirty miles. The ordinary process in his country was that a man merely walked his horses over to another farm, took his implements over in his own carts, and the whole thing was very easily and cheaply arranged. Under this Bill the landlord might have to pay compensation on removals from the north of England to the south, and not only to the south of England, but, for fill he knew, to South Africa. There ought to be some limit imposed. If a firmer belonging to a district did not get a farm within a certain radius of the place in which lie had been living for a long time there must be something against him, and he should receive no compensation. He hoped therefore there would be some limitation put in.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word "stock" insert the words 'to a distance of thirty miles from his holding."—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CARRTNGTON: I think the limitation of expenses would meet the noble Lord's point and prevent a man going from one end of England to another in order to run up a bill. I do not see why we should limit the removal of a man's goods or stock to a distance within thirty miles of the holding that he is leaving. I am perfectly sure that the noble Lord does not wish to make a thirty mile agricultural radius like the four mile cab radius, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this.
LORD SALTOUNasked to be allowed to point out one case. He had a tenant who, next term day, was leaving the farm, at his own request, and was going down to take a farm in Devonshire. It was on account of his wife's health. She had to go west. Supposing instead of that man going at his own desire he was being turned out. He would still go down to Devonshire, but he would claim compensation from his landlord for the whole way.
EARL CARRINGTON: I quite understand the regrettable instance to which the noble Lord has referred, but I think it might be left to the arbitrator, because, after all, valuers have some common sense. It would be found that, when a man was going to the south of England, or perhaps to New Zealand, and said, "I am going to make my landlord pay," that the valuer would probably say, "If you are going this distance what you must do is to sell your goods and you will be compensated in a rough and ready sort of way, if there is any great loss."
*LORD MONK BRETTONsaid he had a similar Amendment on the Paper which he had intended to withdraw, and he was surprised that the noble Lord should have proposed his. It seemed to him that the Amendment, put upon the Paper by the President of the Board of Agriculture would meet the case. A tenant who went to a distance would have to prove that he could not get another holding on that side of the district; and that the expense was directly attributable to his quitting the holding, and the loss sustained had unavoidably been incurred.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he agreed with Lord Monk Bretton that the Amendment of the President of the Board of Agriculture covered the, whole thing. No honest valuer would say that it was unavoidable that a man should go more than thirty miles.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was afraid he could not agree to that. It would be exactly the reverse. A good tenant turned out by a bad landlord could always find somebody glad to take him, but a bad tenant would be unavoidably compelled to go to a

615
distance. These words did not in the least meet the case. The noble Lord had said that if he was a bad tenant he would not come in under this clause. But who was to determine whether he was a bad tenant or not, and, if he was a bad tenant, that he should not come under this clause? It was quite possible that some valuers might not be prepared to say that the man was a bad tenant although the neighbours knew and the landlord knew and did not wish to have him on their property. If that was the case the landlord would have had additional expense because the man was a bad tenant. He quite saw the difficulty of the thirty-mile radius, but it was the noble Lord's own Bill and he had no right to introduce into it an absolutely unworkable grant of compensation of this kind.
THE MARQUIS OF RIPON: I hope the noble Lord will not take a division on this Amendment. It is not possible to make a mileage limit in this matter. Supposing I turn out a tenant and he seeks to take refuge on an estate just within thirty miles and is unsuccessful, it would be very hard to say he should not be compensated for travelling to another estate because it is twelve miles further on.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I agree very much with what has been said upon this subject. I make no secret of the fact that I am not much enamoured of this clause, but I do say if we are to accept the principle of compensation we must depend upon the common sense of the tribunal by which that compensation will be awarded. I prefer to rely on that rather than on any limit of distance which must, after all, be arbitrary in its character. If you want a proof of that arbitrariness you need only look at the Paper and you will see three Amendments upon this subject. Lord Saltoun's suggests thirty miles, Viscount Galway "twenty-five miles" and Lord Monk Bretton "a forty-mile radius." I think that show how impossible it is to work the thing on this principle, and if these Amendments are pressed I shall vote against them.
LORD SALTOUNsaid after what had fallen from the noble Marquess he should certainly withdraw the Amendment. But he thought there ought to be a limit, although he was not wedded to the thirty miles.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid the next Amendment raised a very important question. This clause submitted two totally different questions to the arbitrator—one whether the land-lord had, without good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management, evicted his tenant; and the other the question of what compensation the tenant should receive on the "vacation of his lease or holding. It seemed to him perfectly evident that those two questions could not be determined by the same mind or the same kind of person. One was a question of public policy and the other a question of actual value and detail. He would like to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what his' own definition was of conduct consistent with good estate management. Who was going to decide what was good estate management? He might instance an estate near a big town where the property was being gradually developed and must necessarily be developed for building. A portion of the tenant's land was taken away for building purposes. Was that consistent with good estate management or not? That depended upon what demand there was for sites for building houses. Then supposing the owner said he would take part of the tenant's land not for building purpose, but for the purpose of making a public park; was that consistent with good estate management? That would all depend upon the amount of accommodation there was in the town and the necessity there was for lungs in the town and so forth. Who was going to decide principles of that sort? Again, supposing there was a tenant who was in every respect a good farmer, who did well by his land; who paid his rent promptly, but who happened to be of such an immoral character that he was demoralising the whole neighbourhood. Was it good estate management

617
to get rid of such a tenant or not? That could be judged in both ways. One person might say, "Well, business is business" and so long as the man was a good farmer and did well by his land and paid his rent promptly they had no right to consider anything else. But there were others who considered something more than good farming and prompt payments. Did the Minister for Agriculture think with regard to cases of that sort that he could lay down any rule as to what was good estate management and what was not? This difficulty seemed to require that they must have this question of good estate management submitted to one tribunal and the question of compensation to another. He was not enamoured of his own clause and he would withdraw it in favour of the noble Lord's own proposal provided that he would insert in his clause—
"In questions arising under this section"
If the noble Lord would add those words to his clause he thought the clause would then meet the whole of the difficulty. But before he withdrew it he should like to know what the noble Lord was willing to do in that direction.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'stock' to insert the following new paragraphs: 'Provided as follows—That within fourteen days after receiving a notice to quit or a refusal to renew the tenant if he alleges that he will, under the provisions of this section become entitled to compensation on quitting the holding, shall notify the same in writing to the land lord, and either party may within fourteen days thereafter take proceedings to have the matter determined and the rights declared by a Judge of the High Court in an action for that purpose. In cases where neither the value of the premises nor the rent payable in respect thereof shall have exceeded one hundred pounds by the year, and upon which no fine or premium shall have been duly paid, either party may apply to the Judge of the County Court of the district in which the premises are situate for a declaration of the rights of the parties in respect of the matter to be determined by the Court under this section whose decision therein shall be final, subject to an appeal to a Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice, and such application shall be deemed to be an action or matter within Section 67 of the County Courts Act, 1888, relating to Jurisdiction in Equity. The Court, in any case, and at any time, may allow the withdrawal of a notice to quit or refusal to renew upon such terms as to costs or other wise as it may deem fit.".—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
*LORD ZOUCHEsaid he thought before the noble Lord agreed to that he should look at the first part of the Amendment, which he thought was not covered by the Bill. The most important part of the noble Duke's Amendment was the provision—
"That within fourteen days after receiving a notice to quit or a refusal to renew the tenant, if he alleges that he will under the provisions of this section become, entitled to compensation on quitting the holding shall notify the same in writing to the landlord."
That appeared to him to be an extremely valuable provision, because if a notice was given to the tenant to quit it was quite possible that he might say nothing and lead the landlord to suppose that he did not object. He might allow the time to slip by until the period arrived when he was about to quit the holding and then, if such a term might be permitted, "spring" a claim upon his landlord for compensation for unreasonable disturbance. Some such provision as this was only fair, because at present the matter was a little in doubt. Another vexed question was as to what was unreasonable and what was not. Supposing no reason was given in the notice to quit, that it was a simple notice to quit without any definite reasons being given. Was the fact that there was no reason given to be deemed in itself unreasonable? He ventured under these circumstances to suggest that the first part of the Amendment of the noble Duke should receive the sanction of the Committee even it he withdrew it in favour of the noble Lord later. The only other reference he desired to make was that this difficulty should be determined by the High Court. Their Lordships had recently discussed the provisions of the Town Tenants Bill, and it would be in their recollection that in that Bill there was almost the same clause except that the question was to be determined by the County Court.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN,who had placed a similar Amendment on the Paper, said he quite agreed with what had been said as to the first part of the noble Duke's clause. He thought it would be a very valuable thing to have a locus pœnitentice for both sides. First there should be time after the notice to quit was given

619
for the landlord to withdraw that notice before proceedings were taken in the Court, or before the valuer, and, secondly, there should be time in which both landlord and tenant might consider the position. That was not provided or in the Bill as it stood, but he hoped it would be before the Bill passed its final stage. The next point was the reference of cases of this sort, so far as the "good and sufficient cause and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management" were concerned, to the Court rather than the arbitrator. That was specially provided for by the Amendment which would be moved by the noble Earl at a later stage, but he had not made any provision for the arbitrators. The arbitrators who would do the work with regard to, at any rate, the latter part of this clause—the amount of compensation to be awarded—would have a most important and difficult work to do. These men had hitherto been accustomed to interfere in the differences between landlord and tenant, and it would be, in his opinion, a good thing if there were some recognised person in each county, valuers of the highest class, who should be named as the persons to undertake references of this kind. He suggested that a list should be drawn up by the chairmen of the county councils, but that might not be the best way, and probably a list drawn up by the Board of Agriculture would answer the same purpose. They would be judges in the two important matters with which this clause dealt, namely, good and sufficient cause and good estate management, and he thought it would be for the benefit of all if these arbitrators held a high and distinguished position. He thought that would be to the advantage of landlords and tenants alike, and he hoped the Government would consider the suggestion.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very much relieved by the proposals of the noble Duke and the noble Viscount opposite. The noble Duke's Amendment was a formidable one as it stood, but I think I can meet him in the way in which he proposes, and also the noble Viscount. I quite agree with what the noble Viscount said about the necessity of the arbitrators' having the highest
620
possible standing, but I should be inclined to demur to the suggestion that they should be appointed by the chairmen of the county councils. With regard to the proposal of the noble Duke, I have some words here that I might read to him and we might come to a settlement at once—
"Any question arising under this section, as to whether the landlord acted with good and sufficient cause consistent with good estate management, shall for the purposes of the aribtration relating to the statement of the case, be deemed to be a question of law."
I do not know what the idea of the noble Duke is, put into words, but if that is it, we can settle it now, otherwise we shall have to bring it up on Report, when it can be settled.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The words which the noble Earl has just read seem very good as far as they go, but they do not cover the point dealt with in the first paragraph of the noble Duke's Amendment. It is a very important paragraph indeed. It is the paragraph in which the noble Duke proposes that the tenant shall be compelled to give notice to the landlord within a certain time that he means to claim compensation under this section. I hope the noble Earl will endeavour to graft that into some part of the section.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Duke of Northumberland had spoken of the necessity of adding words as to whether the cause was good and sufficient. Those words could be added to the words of the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he did not think the noble Earl appreciated the position. As the clause now stood in the Bill the proceedings might go on directly the tenant made up his mind to claim compensation after the notice to quit had been given. The point was that there should be time between the notice to quit and the notice to the landlord that the tenant intended to claim, in order that both parties might be able to consider their position. That was provided for by the noble Duke, and he hoped it would be provided for in the Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON: Will noble Lords opposite allow me to deal with this matter on Report?I think we then shall be able to come to a conclusive arrangement.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid there was the same case with regard to Scotland. That was one of the misfortunes of putting Scotland and England into one Bill. He desired to point out to the noble Earl that it was really necessary that any such questions should be dealt with, and he suggested that all questions as to the unreasonableness of the landlord and "good and sufficient cause" should, in Scotland, be decided by the sheriff.
A NOBLE LORDpointed out that in border to meet this point he would have to alter the Amendment standing in his name on page 4, line 11, so as to add to it that the question of good and sufficient reason should also be a question of law. If the noble Earl did that the Amendment would do all that it was proposed to do.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that they could revive this discussion on Report. He thought that it would be absolutely necessary on Report to discuss the whole policy of Clause 4. It was a very serious question, and they must not take it as settled if the discussion was not taken now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHmoved ah Amendment excluding from compensation claims goods which the landlord offered to take at a valuation. They had had a great deal of discussion as to the expense that might be placed upon the landlord by the tenant's removal of his stock and goods. It seemed to him that very often it would be a convenience for both landlord and tenant if the stock and implements, etc., could be taken over at a valuation. He hoped the noble Earl would accept this Amendment, because in the House of Commons the Solicitor General had stated that this
622
was what in all probability would take place under the Bill. The Solicitor-General said that if the landlord said to the tenant, "I will take over your stock at a valuation," and the tenant refused and said he would have a public sale, and the public sale realised a less amount than that which had been offered, the arbitrator in all probability would not give compensation.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 8, after the word 'stock' to insert: 'Provided that a claim for compensation under this section shall not be sustainable in respect of any household goods, implements, produce, or stock which the landlord offers in writing at least one month before the expiration of the contract of tenancy to take at a valuation."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot honestly say I like the principle, for the reason that I do not think in the first place the landlord would like to avail himself of the offer given, and I must say that the tenant would feel aggrieved. If he got less than he ought to get then he ought to claim. I am, of course, in the hands of the House, but I should suggest that the supposed right of pre-emption should not apply to household goods, because there was such a thing in a man's household as the man's wife, and she might for some reason object to a particular clock or a particular chair or some other particular object of furniture or piece of china being taken by the landlord in the valuation. So I hope if the Committee insists upon the Amendment they will leave out the household goods.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he should imagine that his noble friend would not press this Amendment. But it contained the principle of valuation which the noble Lord must consider on the Report Stage. The only way to carry out this clause was to have some sort of valuation to which the landlord was a party.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he now proposed that this clause should not apply to the tenure of land in Scotland. It was admitted that the Bill was not drafted for Scotland, and if the noble Lord after

623
the discussions which, had taken place in this House thought it did apply to Scotland he did not know very much of the conditions that existed there. He did not intend to raise the question of dual ownership but to ask whether it was intended to give in Scotland to adult men who were quite able to make their own bargains a clause of this kind in which the landlord was penalized if he simply refused to renew a tenancy. Why should a landlord not refuse? The tenant had been in occupation for a period of years. He had bargained to come for a certain number of years and no longer. The period had expired, the landlord had fulfilled his contract, and the tenant had enjoyed his bargain for the period he had bargained for. Why in the name of common sense or justice was the tenant to have more than he bargained for and the landlord have taken from him what he never contracted to give away? The noble Lord had said that he did not believe landlords would act in an arbitrary manner. The landlord would not act in an arbitrary manner at all; the lease would expire by effluxion of time and the bargain would come to an end. The noble Lord, like many of his predecessors, went to Scotland and attended annual conferences of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and the Associated Societies, and made a number of eloquent speeches. In one of them the noble Lord said—
"I understand that the clause is not absolutely necessary for Scotland because I believe the general tenure in Scotland is on a nineteen years lease. If you have a nineteen years lease you have a certain amount of security for your holding. But the farmers in England are in a different position."
A little later on he said—
"I would also remind you that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who gave most valuable assistance during the discussions on the Bill, expressed his opinion that it would not be difficult to adopt the Bill to Scottish procedure and that this can readily be done by means of an application clause."
The noble Lord therefore admitted that the clause as it stood was not suitable to Scotland. At an earlier stage of the Bill he pressed the noble Lord to put down Amendments to make this a practical clause. From that
624
time to this they had not had the least attempt to do anything of the kind. They were the victims of an ambitious Gentleman from Cornwall who had since been unseated for bribery, and they were there to assist him and his friends to pass this Bill. He would not be responsible for applying this clause in any form to the system of land tenure in Scotland. Root and branch this scheme was unsuitable. It was unfair to the landlord and would not do the least good to the tenant. The First Lord of the Admiralty had made a most conciliatory and reasonable speech on the Second Reading. The noble Lord said with regard to the compensation for unreasonable disturbance—
"There is no doubt that that clause as drafted does apply to leases as well as to year to year engagements. I am myself best acquainted with the nineteen years leases, and I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Carrington that it might be well to consider whether we should not introduce certain provisions that would specially meet the case of nineteen years leases."
From the particular form of the interpretation it was clear that that was a promise by the Government, and he did not know now to whom they were to apply. From first to last they had not been fairly treated in this matter. They were put off from time to time and did not know now what the intentions of the Government were with regard to Scotland. The noble Lord representing the Scottish Office ertainly did put down two Amendments on the Paper a day or two ago, but they had since been withdrawn. He thought their Lordships ought to know whether they were withdrawn by the desire of the Government or whether they were to be renewed at a subsequent stage. Their Lordships were in the small hours of the morning asking for information promised to the Scottish nation two months ago by the noble Lord representing the Scottish Office, which they were even now unable to get.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert the words 'This section shall not apply to Scotland."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I hardly think; that I personally deserve all the noble

625
Lord has said. We cannot possibly accept the noble Lord's Amendment. There is no reason which leads us to suppose that a clause which is so necessary in England is inapplicable to Scotland. I quite agree that the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture disapproved of the clause, but I think there is an increasing disposition in Scotland to regard it with favour. And it it is possible even in Scotland for a bad landlord or two to exist, and this evil may occur. What do the Scotch Members of the House of Commons say? I quite agree that the noble Lord is a great Scottish representative and that he knows a great deal of the feeling in Scotland, but there are such persons as Scottish Members of Parliament, and some of them have been returned by large majorities, and it may fairly be supposed that they represent to some extent and in some way the feeling of the people who sent them to Parliament. I find that in the other House there is not anyone who is willing to give way on this clause. Now, what am I to do? Am I to believe the noble Lord or am I to believe the men who are popularly elected to represent the views of the majority of their countrymen in Parliament? I think my only plan is to take the opinion of those who represent the majority and to act accordingly I really must protest against any imputation of injustice. In this case I have, if I may use a word that is somewhat disliked, a distinct mandate from the representatives of Scotland to stand by the clause as it is. I most earnestly hope that the noble Lord will recognise the feeling of the country of which he is so distinguished an ornament, and will recognise the view of Scotland as expressed by the electorate.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: What am I to make of the promise of the First Lord of the Admiralty?
EARL CARRINGTON: He made the promise and explained it, but that promise was entirely conditional.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he could quite understand that the noble Lord had a strong claim with regard to nineteen
626
years leases. But he supposed there were in Scotland such things as annual tenancies. If that were so why should this Bill be applied in England and not in Scotland? If the noble Lord proposed to move that the clause should not apply to nineteen years leases that would be an intelligible proposition which he might support. But he certainly could not vote for excluding Scotland in this matter, and if the noble Lord proceeded to a division on this Amendment he should vote against it.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he would have been willing to withdraw his Amendment if he had received the slightest consideration from the noble Lord, but upon this matter he must make his protest, even if he stood alone.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SALTOUN:moved to exclude leases for nineteen years or longer from the operation of the clause. He adopted every word that had fallen from Lord Balfour with regard to this subject. He put this Amendment down as he thought probably it would apply to English as well as Scottish leases, and he hoped the noble Earl would find himself able to accept it. There was no use in arguing the point further, and therefore he would content himself with moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert the words, 'This section shall not apply to leases of nineteen years or longer duration."—(Lord Saltoun.)
A NOBLE LORDsaid he did not see why nineteen years should be inserted.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that twenty-one years would be the ordinary lease in England with a power to break at seven or fourteen years, but, as he under-stood, a lease in Scotland was for nineteen years. That was the reason for inserting that figure.
EARL CARRINGTON: No, no. I cannot agree to that. It strikes at the root of the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to point out to the noble Earl that the Chairman has put the Question and the Amendment is carried.
THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Yes, that is so. I put the Question and you did not challenge and the Contents had it.
EARL CARRINGTON: If that is so, I cannot agree to it, and I shall have to bring it up on Report.
THE EARL OF LYTTON,who had given notice to move to insert the words "And compensation paid under this section by the landlord, being a tenant for life or other limited owner of settled land, may be repaid to him by the trustees of the settlement out of capital monies in their hands," said the object of these words was not to enable the tenant for life to charge this torts on his successors, but merely to make it plain that the tenant for life, when he carried out an improvement, which was advantageous to the estate and to his successors, should be repaid. Supposing the successor to the tenant for life arranged to come and take the house of a farm in order that he might know the land, that would be advantageous to the estate and himself. The question of whether or not compensation would have to be paid to the tenant last on the holding was, as the Bill stood now, left entirely in the discretion of the arbitrator. If the Bill was to continue in that form he should have asked leave to introduce these words into it. But he noticed that there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl which would give an appeal in these cases, and therefore he would not move his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert the words 'Provided that this section shall not apply where the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit or in the case of a lease for years has died before the refusal to grant a renewal."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after the word 'arbitration' to insert as a new sub-section '(2) A claim for compensation under this section shall not be made after the expiration of three months from the time at which the tenant quits the holding."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that the words were quite right so far as one end was concerned, but what the Committee really desired was to see a change made so as to enable the matter to be fairly considered before the tenant quitted his holding.
EARL CARRINGTON: Would not three months be enough?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought three months would be ample, but it should be three months before and not after the tenant quitted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after 'arbitration' to insert as a new sub-section '(3) Any question arising under this section as to whether a reason was inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration relating to the statement of a case, be deemed to be a question of law."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTERsaid before the clause was put, he had an Amendment, not on the Paper, which he desired to move. The noble Earl had assumed with regard to the arbitrators who would act under this Bill that every man appointed would be capable of carrying out the duty. But he thought some direction should be given to the arbitrator in cases of compensation to take into consideration whether the sale had been properly and duly advertised, and whether it had been held in the ordinary way. He therefore moved.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 11, after 'arbitrators' to insert the words 'And in cases of claims under this section for loss on sale, the arbitrator shall take into consideration whether that sale has been bona fide and has been properly advertised."—(The Marquess of Winchester.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMHTEESsaid that since this Amendment was handed in, two others had been added to the Bill. Therefore, this Amendment would come in as the 4th sub-section.
EARL CARRINGTON: I hardly like to pledge myself to accept the noble Marquess's Amendment now. I would ask the noble Marquess to move it again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:—
*Viscount HILLmoved an Amendment requiring tenants to submit plans of proposed repairs. He said that although tenants might be good farmers they sometimes had no very great idea of what buildings were best suited to their purpose, and sometimes made fancy improvements which were as a matter of fact no improvements at all. He had had a case on his own estate where the tenant desired to have an improvement and to get rid of the grievance of which he had complained. He had no objection to meet his tenant and had drawn up plans in accordance with what he thought his tenant desired. In the meantime his tenant had had his own plans drawn up by a local contractor; but they would not carry out the main object of his tenant, which was to get rid of an overflow of water in his yard. He had refused to have the work done in his tenant's way and his tenant had refused to allow him to do it in his own, and up to the present time that improvement had not been carried out. What he wanted to know was what would be his position when this Bill came into force.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 26, after the word 'intention to insert the words 'together with plans of such repairs."—(Viscount Hill.)
EARL CARRINGTON: This Amendment would increase the cost to the tenant. The Bill only applies to the repairs the landlord should execute. The ordinary procedure is that the landlord should do the repairs. I really do not think there is much in this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*EARL FORTESCUEdid not think many repairs would be done on these farms. But at the same time he thought it was only reasonable that the tenant should send a post card to the landlord giving him notice when the work was going to be done in the event of the landlord failing to execute the repairs, and he moved an Amendment with that object.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 28, after the word 'notice to insert the words 'and shall if the landlord fails to execute the repairs give him notice in writing of the date at which they will be executed."—(Earl Fortescue.)
Earl CARRINGTON: It seems undesirable to complicate such a measure as this by so many notices. I should hardly think the noble Lord will insist on his Amendment. It seems rather unreasonable to ask for two notices in place of one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:—
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that gates formed a very important part of a holding, and he thought the record would not be complete without them. He accordingly moved that they should be included in the record.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 31, after the word 'fences' to insert the word 'gates."—(The Earl of Lytton).
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 31, after the Word 'roads' to insert the word 'gates,' and after the word 'drains' to insert the word 'ditches."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that as the Bill now stood, after the Amendment just agreed to, it would include all drains. He therefore desired to insert words to exclude field drains. It might cause a great deal of inconvenience to the farmer to interfere with field drains.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 31, after the word 'drains' to insert the words 'other than field drains."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
A NOBLE LORDsaid it was very easy to find it out when field drains were damaged in any way, and it would be a great pity to exclude them from the clause.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had been asked by Lord Lytton to move an Amendment providing that the record should be made within six months after the commencement of the tenancy.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 32, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'within six months after the commencement of the tenancy."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON: Would the noble Lord accept one month in place of six months? I proposed to move an Amendment on Lord Penrhyn's Amendment very much to the same effect. I propose to amend that Amendment by saying "Within one month after."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he had no particular objection to accepting "one month," but he thought it was rather a short time. Would the noble Earl make it "three months?
EARL CARRINGTON: I accept that.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the object of his next Amendment was to maintain this record and keep it up-to-date.
Amendment moved—
"In line 35, after the word 'proportions' insert the words 'where such record has been made either party at any time during the tenancy may require the entry thereon at his own cost, if any, of improvements made or depreciation having occurred (other than depreciation from fair wear and tear) in the condition of the buildings, fences, roads, drains, and cultivation of the holding."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL CARRINGTON:I cannot accept this Amendment. The view of the Government is that it would be the cause of a great deal of trouble and would lead to considerable complications. I am in the hands of the Committee and, though I earnestly make my protest against the Amendment, I shall not put them to the trouble of a division.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid it would not do to make the requirement too costly and two troublesome.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid if there were going to be difficulties and troubles, was that any reason why the record should not be kept up.
THE EARL OF PEMBROKEasked whether it would not be the case that every estate office would keep a record.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid a record would no doubt be kept by every estate office, but that the estate would then be charged. However he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:—
EARL CARRINGTON: I propose to leave out Clause 9 because a slight Amendment which I propose to move to Clause 12 will render Clause 9 unnecessary. It is practically a question of drafting.
Clause 10:—
EARL CARRINGTON: This again is only a drafting Amendment, Clause 10 having been now rendered unnecessary.

Clause 11:—
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND:moved to alter the date of the Act's coming into operation from 1908 to 1909.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 6, to leave out the word 'eight' and insert the word 'nine."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think we can possibly agree to this Amendment. It would postpone the operation of the provisions of the Act for nearly two years. When the Act of 1900 was brought in by noble Lords opposite it came into operation five months afterwards. If I am fortunate enough to get this Bill passed before Christmas it will not come into force for thirteen months. I therefore hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was very sorry, but he must press; this to a division. He did not think the precedent quoted had any bearing on the case. This Bill would interfere with every tenant in the country and it would be necessary for every running annual agreement to be called in and altered. He did not think noble Lords opposite knew quite what they were doing. The yearly tenants on most estates were accustomed to have their agreements renewed without any alteration, and there I was nothing about which they were so suspicious as any alteration being made in those agreements. The Government I should have no cause to wonder, therefore, if the tenants were informed as to whom they had to thank for this disturbance. If they had had a discussion, and he hoped this matter would be brought up on Report, he should have pointed out that large numbers of tenancies were held in two or three names. On his own estates he had 120 tenancies in respect to which more than one name appeared
634
in the agreement. Every one of those agreements would have to be altered and the name of one tenant put in, therefore it was only reasonable that time should be given for the alteration of this practice which was so general and so widespread. He frankly confessed that he would make no promise with regard to this clause, but he had been willing to agee to it. He had hoped that it would have been sufficient to put off the evil day till Michaelmas, 1908, but he had found that there were many tenancies which terminated on old Michaelmas day, which was 11th October, and therefore it was absolutely necessary in order that these agreements should be put in order, to defer the Act to 1909.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid it was originally proposed that the Bill should come into force on the first of January, 1908. It was expected then that it would become law before last Michaelmas. If it had, notice, in the case of an annual tenancy, would have had to be given to the tenant and the tenancy would have had to expire before the agreement could have been altered. If that had not been the intention of the Government they would not have carried the Bill as it stood. Now that its passing had been postponed he could not understand why there thould be any objection to this Amendment.
*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON:I cannot but think that it would be a great disadvantage to landlords and tenants alike if this Bill, having been passed, should be allowed to be inoperative for so long a period as twenty-five mouths. It seems to me that great difficulties may arise in consequence; that landlords may not carry out the intention of the Act and tenants may feel agrieved because landlords do not adopt it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked how the landlord was to give notice to a tenant. A yearly tenancy was practically a two years tenancy, because before a landlord could get rid of a tenant he had to wait till the expiration of the tenancy before he could give notice. He thought it extremely desirable that the Bill should not come into operation before they could make those

635
mutual arrangements which would be necessary in many cases.
LORD REDESDALEsaid it was obvious that unless the operation of this Bill was postponed until 1909 the landlords would be reduced to conditions of absolute impotence in regard to those tenancies which were still running. He thought that would be most unfair.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am of course in the hands of the Committee, but I wish to make the strongest protest against this Amendment; I am in favour of keeping the clause as it is.
LORD SALTOUN:moved a slight alteration in the words of the clause so far as it applied to Scotland. In Scotland they took no notice of the beginning of the year, but had what was called a "term day." In the event of this Bill coming into force on the 1st of January, 1909, they would, in Scotland, be put back three months till November. But in the event of this Amendment being adopted it would bring its operation up to the first term day in 1909.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 6, after the word 'eight' to insert the words 'and in its application to Scotland on the first term day thereafter.")—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot accept this Amendment. I need not go over the old ground again. Of course I am in the hands of the Committee, and I shall content myself with making a strong protest against it. I shall not go to a division.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:—
EARL CARRINGTON: This is a drafting Amendment necessitated by and consequent on leaving out Clause 9.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 8, after the word 'and' insert the words 'shall be read and construed and"—(Earl Carrington.)
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON,in moving the omission of the preamble, said: This is another drafting Amendment which ought to have been made in the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNasked whether the noble Earl would not now rename the Bill. It was ridiculous to call it the "Land Tenure Bill;" it ought to be called the Agricultural Holdings Act Amendments Bill.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to postpone the question of title until Report.
Standing Committee negatived.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Wednesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 238.)

STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

BURIALS BILL.
REMOVAL OF OFFENSIVE MATTER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. [No. 239.]
LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL. [No. 240.]
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow; (Earl Beauchamp). (No. 241.)

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 242.)
House adjourned at One o'clock a.m., till Eleven o'clock a.m.