Sitting of 14 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Amendments to Street Betting Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Ure Elder Fund."[Ure Elder Fund Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Ardrossan, Saltcoats, and District Tramways."[Ardrossan, Saltcoats, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Also of Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline and District Tramways."[Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunbartonshire Tramways."[Dunbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
That they have agreed to, Licensing (Removal of Doubts) Bill, without Amendment, Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill, Trade Disputes Bill, with Amendments.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  EDINBURGH SUBURBAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Considered; a Clause (For protection of the Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Commissioners)—(Mr. Sinclair)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  URE ELDER FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered, under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered upon Monday next.

  ARDROSSAN, SALTCOATS, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and ordered, under Section 9 of the Private Legislation

  823
  Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 372.]

  DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and ordered, under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 373.]
  DUMBARTONSHIRE TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and ordered, under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 374.]
PETITION.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Erith, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SMALL HOLDINGS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into and report upon the subject of Small Holdings in Great Britain, with Copy of the Minutes appointing the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OPTIONS AND FUTURES IN FOOD STUFFS (LEGISLATION RESPECTING).
  Copy presented, of Reports from the Canadian Government and His Majesty's Representatives Abroad on Legislative Measures respecting Gambling in "Option" and "Future" Contracts as regards Food Stuffs [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (GUNNERY).
  Copy presented, of Result of Test of Gun-layers with Heavy Guns in His Majesty's Fleet, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (DISTURBANCES AT PORTSMOUTH.)
  Copy presented, of 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 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
  Copy presented, of Sixty-eighth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  Copy presented of Additional Regulation relative to the Uniform worn, by Prison Officers [by Act]; to lie upon, the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 10. Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 382.]

  2. Closure of Debate (Standing Order No. 26). Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 383.]

  3. Divisions of the House. Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.

  4. Public Bills. Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.

  5. Public Petitions. Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.

  6. Select Committees. Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.

  7. Sittings of the House. Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.

  8. Business of the House (Days occupied by Government and by Private Members). Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 384.]

  9. Private Bills and Private Business. Return relative thereto [ordered 12th December; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return ordered, "of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the session of 1906 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before the Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Natal and Reservation of Bills by Law Officers.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a letter purporting to be written from Government House, Natal, in the present year, on behalf of the Governor, in which it is suggested that His Excellency is advised in the matter of reserving Bills by the law officers of the Crown for Natal, and must be guided by their opinion; and whether he will state how far, as concerns subjects named in instructions as those which should be reserved, a Governor is guided by the advice of members of the Government directly concerned, and how far he acts on his own responsibility.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have seen the letter to which reference is made. A statement is made in the case of every Bill by the Attorney-General giving his opinion that assent may properly be given or that the instructions require reservation as the case may be. The Attorney-General in Natal is not a Minister but a permanent civil servant, but in any case the responsibility for assenting must rest with the Governor,
  826
  who would not be bound by the advice given if the somewhat improbable case should arise of his considering that it was contrary to his instructions.

  Working Hours in Devonport Dockyards.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of a general desire in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, North and South, that a re-arrangement of time for the three months November, December, and January should be effected so that the working hours for the three months may become, the same as those arranged by the Admiralty from 1st February to 31st October, thus creating one uniform time; and whether, in view of the advantages to the employees accruing from the concession of the working hours of the aforesaid nine months, he would grant their continuance for the whole of the twelve mouths, thus placing the employees on the same system as at Portsmouth dockyard.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The system of hours at present in force is only experimental, and the rearrangement which my honourable friend proposes will have attention when the question of establishing the present system on a permanent basis comes up for consideration in a few months time.

  Accommodation by Male Prisoners in the New Greenock Prison.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the number of prisoners (male) which it is estimated that the new Greenock Prison will hold.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.)—The reply is 130 males.

  Charitable Loans Fund Act and the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland when the Charitable Loans Fund Bill comes into law; and whether he can hold out any hope that the debenture holders in the Edgeworthstown Loan Fund, who lost their lives' savings by the defalcations of a fraudulent clerk

  827
  named Flaver, will be recouped any of their losses by the operations of this Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.)—The Bill about which the hon. Member inquires became law on 4th August last (6 Edw. VII., c. 23). The Loan Fund Board have no reason to think that it could be used for the recovery of any debts due to the society mentioned in the Question, inasmuch as the late receiver over the society found it useless to retain the position any longer, as justices at petty sessions had ceased to give decrees in consequence of the prevalence of the defence that the promissory notes sued upon had been forged.

  Grants to Free Church.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether the United Free Church have made representations to the Commissioners, urging that the amount of £3,000 a year allocated for the education of students for the ministry of the Free Church should be made by way of annual contribution at the hands of the United Free Church; and, if so, whether this is an allocation of the Free Church property as between the two churches.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.)—I have no right or title officially to inquire into such representations, although I am of course aware that such feeling exists as to the setting up of a perpetual endowment to the Free Church of the kind stated. It would be beyond my province and improper, however, for me to make any pronouncement upon the subject.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that Subsection 3, Clause 1, of the Churches (Scotland) Act enacts that the funds and property of the Church are to be applied in accordance with the second column of the First Schedule of the Act, he is aware that, notwithstanding this fact, the Commissioners had allocated the three Free Church colleges to the United Free Church, along with five libraries, and that they have allocated only the upper floors of the offices of the
  828
  Free Church to the Free Church to serve as a college, without any library; and whether, seeing that the Act provides that the Free Church is entitled to a college from the colleges, he will say what section of the Act of Parliament gives the Commissioners power to act in this manner.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) In deference to my hon. friend I have looked at the statute, but fail to find in it the provision to which he refers "that the Free Church is entitled to a college from the colleges," and it may be, therefore, that the Question has been put under an entire misapprehension. But the Commission, which I may mention includes one Judge of the highest eminence, is vested in its duties of allocation with final statutory power and well able to construe the statute under which it acts, and I have no power, even if I desired to do so, to put forward an operative construction of the Act.

  Compulsory Vaccination—Conscientious Objectors.
  MR. J. H. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has in contemplation legislation in regard to compulsory vaccination which will prevent parents who have gone to the trouble and expense of making application to the magistrates for exemption for their children, on the ground of conscientious objection, being subsequently summoned and fined for adhering to their opposition.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this. I am giving consideration to the question whether some alteration should be made in the law as to the procedure to be followed by conscientious objectors to enable them to obtain exemption from penalties under the Vaccination Acts.

  Indian Government and British Cotton Growing Association.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India,

  829
  when the Return of the correspondence between the India Office and the Government of India and the British Cotton Growing Association, which was presented to the House on 5th November, will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have ascertained from the printers that the Paper in question will be circulated to hon. Members on Monday next.

  Landing Facilities at Cooscroum, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to say what steps, if any, will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to improve the landing facilities at Cooscroum, County Kerry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congeested Districts Board recently considered applications which had been made to them for the construction of a pier at Cooscroum. They decided to postpone the matter until it has been ascertained what works are to be carried out at Reenard Point, and what contribution, if any, they may give to such works.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of James Clancy.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from James Clancy, Drumaculla, Largydonnell, barony of Rosclogher, county of Leitrim; and, if so, what steps they are taking with a view to his reinstatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the application referred to in the Question, and will have the case inquired into by one of their inspectors as soon as may be possible, having regard to the many similar cases which have to be inquired into.

  Largydonnell River Basin—Drainage Scheme.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the damage caused to the crops of the neighbouring farmers by the overflow of the Largydonnell River, in the barony of Rosclogher, county of Leitrim, and to the fact that the bed of the river has been gradually filled with stones until it has completely disappeared, he will urge the Congested Districts Board to reconsider their decision regarding the drainage scheme and give a sufficient grant to have the work carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board have been legally advised that if they should carry out drainage works upon rivers they might render themselves liable to claims for damages on the part of owners and occupiers on the lower reaches of such rivers. In the case of Largydonnell River, as in many other cases, the Board have declined to undertake drainage works, but they informed the applicants last year, and again in October last, that they would contribute to the cost if the local authorities, or any legally constituted local body, would carry out the work.

  Said of the Nash Estate, County Leitrim.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether negotiations are pending for the sale of the Nash estate, Drumnacross, Kilosnet, County Leitrim; whether he is aware that the agent, Mr. Hewton, refuses to give a tenant named Michae M'Goldrick turbary, although turbary is available on the estate, even for tenants living on adjoining estates; and whether he will request the Estates Commissioners not to complete the sale until they have investigated the complaint made by M'Goldrick.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements in respect of the estate referred to have been lodged with them

  831
  but the tenant named in the Question is not one of the proposed purchasers. The Commissioners will, before sanctioning the sale, have due inquiry made into the matter mentioned in the Question.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of James Galvin.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners from James Galvin, Portarlington, who was evicted from a holding on the estate of Dr. Tabuteau, situate at Brackna, near that town; whether he is aware that Dr. Tabuteau, who is medical officer of the district, recently applied for sick leave to the Mountmellick Board of Guardians, and immediately proceeded to superintend farm operations upon Galvin's evicted farm; and, seeing that a substitute was appointed and paid out of the rates to perform Dr. Tabuteau's duties, can he say what course the Local Government Board propose taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estate Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from James Galvin, and have referred it, with others from the same district, to an inspector for inquiry and report. The Local Government Board have no record that Dr. Tabuteau recently obtained sick leave from the Mountmellick Board of Guardians. In September last he was granted two weeks ordinary vacation, and the Board sanctioned the employment of a locum tenens during that time at four guineas a week.

  Grant to Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the majority of fifty-two, who voted at the Agricultural Council meeting on the 27th November last in favour of subsidising the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society out of the Department's funds, were officials and members of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society;
  832
  and can he say how many of the majority of fifty-two were nominated members of the Agricultural Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that of the fifty-two members of the Council of Agriculture referred to in the Question only one is an official of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. Seven are members of the committee of the society, but have no financial interest in it. Eleven others are ordinary members, that is to say, they are subscribers to the society but take no part in its management. Twenty-four of the fifty-two members in question are nominated members.

  Irish Board of Works—New Year's Day Holiday
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will inquire from the Board of Works, Dublin, the reason why the holiday which was formerly granted to the staff on New Year's Day is about to be discontinued; and, in view of the fact that in nearly every Government Department in Dublin, including the Chief Secretary's Office, as well as in numerous commercial offices, this day is given as a holiday, will he see that the same privilege is extended to the Board of Works officials, considering that the working of the Department was not hindered in any way by the arrangements made in former years.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the Board of Works have reconsidered the holidays granted to their staff with the view of bringing them into conformity with the general regulations and practice of the Civil Service, and have therefore excluded New Year's Day, which is not generally recognised as a holiday. I see no reason for interfering with this decision.

  Extensions to Cavan and Leitrim Railway.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present position of affairs respecting the proposed extensions to the Cavan and

  833
  Leitrim Railway, for which provision was made by the late Government in the Development Grant Estimate; and whether it is intended to renew this provision in the Estimate for 1907–8.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The question whether the provision for the Cavan and Leitrim Railway extension can be renewed in the Ireland Development Grant Estimate for 1907–8 will depend on the result of the railway company's efforts to overcome local opposition. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, legislation is necessary, and the Bill which was introduced at the instance of the railway company in the earlier part of the present session was not proceeded with owing to the opposition of the county council. I understand that the railway company are at present considering certain proposals which may have the effect of removing local opposition, but I am not in a position to forecast what the result may be. The proposed expenditure from the Development Grant for next year has not yet been settled.

  Marine Works and Railway Construction in County Mayo.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the amount set aside out of moneys provided by the Marine Works Act on harbour works, originally contemplated at Innishlyre, county Mayo; whether the construction of these works has now been definitely abandoned; if so, is it proposed to expend the full amount of the grant provided for Innishlyre on other works of public utility in the county Mayo; and whether he can hold out any hope that effect will be given to the recommendation of the late Government in favour of the opening up of the district between Mullaranny and Belmullet, by the construction of a line of railway connecting these places, in substitution for works at Innishlyre.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The amount which was provisionally allocated by the late Government out of the Marine Works Fund for harbour works at Innishlyre was £51,000. As the right hon. Gentleman
  834
  is aware, this scheme was suspended before the present Government came into office, and I cannot say whether it will be revived, because the Government have at present under consideration a scheme for the extension to Belmullet of some existing line of railway. This latter scheme, if carried out, would involve a much larger expenditure than that mentioned. I am not yet in a position to make any more definite statement upon the subject.

  Delay in Sale of the O'Brien Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the cause of the delay in the sale of the O'Brien estate at Cornakelly and Corglass, in North Longford; whether he is aware that the negotiations for the sale of this estate have extended over seven years; whether the offer of the Estates Commissioners to the Land Judge for this estate has yet been made or accepted; and, if not, can he hold out any hope that the sale will go through and state when the Estates Commissioners will give the tenants their vesting orders.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have no information as to the length of time during which this estate may have been for sale in the Land Judge's Court. So far as the Estates Commissioners are concerned, they inform me that they have had the estate inspected with a view to purchase, and their inspector's report was received in May last. The Commissioners found it necessary to raise certain queries on the report, and this has somewhat delayed the matter. The Commissioners, however, hope to be in a position shortly to make an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the estate.

  Purchase of the Hussey Estate, North Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Hussey estate at Ahabeg, North Kerry, which has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board, will be taken over by the Estates Commissioners and vested in the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board expect that the estate of Mr. S. M. Hussey, which they have agreed to purchase, will be legally vested in them early next year, and they hope to sell the property to the tenants within the ensuing few months.

  Local Government Board Inquiry at Strabane.
  Mr. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Messrs. Coffey and Considine, Local Government Board inspectors, are at present conducting an inquiry into certain charges of neglect of duty, preferred by the Strabane Rural District Council and the Strabane Board of Guardians against their clerk, Mr. J. E. Sharkie; that, on the 20th November, 1906, during the investigation of these charges by the inspectors, Mr. Sharkie tendered his resignation to the above-mentioned bodies; will he say whether Mr. Sharkie has been censured by the Local Government Board for neglect of duty; and if so, how often; whether Mr. Sharkie has been summoned by the Local Government Board to Strabane Petty Sessions; if so, what was the nature of the charge preferred, and the decision of the magistrates in the matter; and whether, pending the result of the inquiry, the Local Government Board will sanction the acceptance of Mr. Sharkie's resignation by the above-mentioned bodies?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the inquiry referred to concluded some days ago. It is the fact that Mr. Sharkie handed in his resignation to the Board of Guardians on the 20th November. The Local Government Board had censured him on several occasions, but they cannot, in the time limited by the notice of this Question, say how often. The Board had also summoned Mr. Sharkie, under Section 86 of the Act of 1898, for failing to furnish the abstracts of the accounts of the Board of Guardians and of the two rural district councils of which he was ex-officio clerk. The case was adjourned to enable a settlement to be arrived at, with the result that Mr. Sharkie furnished the necessary returns
  836
  and agreed to pay all costs; and the proceedings were then withdrawn. The acceptance of Mr. Sharkie's resignation rests with the Board of Guardians and not with the Local Government Board. The resignation was accepted by the guardians on the 4th instant.

  Irish School Junior Inspectors—Age Limits for Examination.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the limit of age in connection with the forthcoming examination for junior inspectors, excludes several school teachers who proposed to compete; and whether, seeing that the limit of age for such teachers was thirty-nine years, in consideration of being already in the service of the Commissioners of Education, the Commissioners can state the ground for the alteration in the present examination?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, under former regulations, the maximum limit of age for inspector's assistants was thirty-nine years in the case of candidates who were national school teachers. This fact was taken into account by the Commissioners when the age limits for junior inspectors were recently under consideration. The Commissioners, however, desire to secure the services of young and active men for the position, and as the work is very laborious, involving much travelling and exposure to the weather, they fixed the maximum age at thirty-five.

  Strength of Army Reserve.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the following branches of the service prior to June, 1895, viz., Reserve of the Royal Artillery, Army Service Corps, Army Ordnance' Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, Army Pay Corps, Army Veterinary Corps, Post Office Reservists, and Sick Bearers in connection with the Royal Army Medical Corps, but not actually serving; and what are the strengths at the present time?
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The strength of Army Reserve of the undermentioned corps on the 1st May,

  Corps.

  1st May, 1895.

  1st November, 1906.

  Royal Artillery

  10,039

  15,299

  Army Service Corps

  2,507

  3,989

  Army Ordnance Corps

  254

  272

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  1,137

  1,574

  Army Pay Corps

  —

  17

  Army Veterinary Corps

  —

  —

  Post Office Corps

  108

  130

  Sick Bearers, R.A.M.C.

  —

  —

  Outside the men of the Army Medical Corps shown above, there are no reservists in connection with that corps.

  Public Trustee Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Prime Minister if he will assign Wednesday to the remaining stages of the Public Trustee Bill; and, having regard to the daily increasing loss caused by the misappropriations of trustees, and failing the possibility of such enactment this session, if he will undertake that the Bill shall have an early place in the legislative programme of next session?
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) Wednesday has been allotted for the Army discussion. Should it be impossible to proceed with the Public Trustee Bill during this session the Government will consider the suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next.—
1895, and 1st November, 1906, was as follows:—

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 371.]
TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 370.]

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.

  Clause 3:—
  SIR JOHN TUKE (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities),who had given notice of his intention to propose the insertion of the words "of science and" after the word "promotion," said he would not move the Amendment, because he had come to the conclusion that the interests of science were sufficiently safeguarded under this

  839
  Bill. He heartily congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on having arrived at a solution of the difficulty in a statesman-like and business-like manner.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech, as he is not moving his Amendment.
  Clause 3 agreed to.

  Clause 4:—
  *MR. MORTONmoved as an Amendment that the Board should consist of nine members, one to be appointed by each of the following six city councils, but not necessarily a member, namely, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness, and Perth, and three by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Member said he included Inverness because it was the capital of the north of Scotland. He complained that the Report of the Committee which sat in 1903, and over which the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's presided, was being ignored from beginning to end, and he failed to understand why a Committee which considered the whole question so thoroughly should have its Report treated in such a manner. This was not a mere Edinburgh affair, but a Scottish matter, and it should be treated as such. He had no faith in the gentlemen appointed by the Secretaries for Scotland to these Boards, especially after the experience they had had in connection with the Board of Manufactures, to which gentlemen were appointed—not to do any work but to secure for them some sort of official position. According to the Report of the Committee they did not make good attendances at the meetings. He desired to know what the Secretary for Scotland proposed. Everything had been done in a most secretive manner. Moreover, it was unfair that a Bill of this character should be brought in at the fag-end of the session.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 17, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the word 'who,' in line 18, and to insert the words 'consist of nine members, one to be appointed by each of the following six city councils, but not necessarily a member, namely, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee. Aberdeen, Inverness, and
  840
  Perth, and three by the Secretary for Scotland."—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair, Forfarshire)said it was true the Bill did not follow the recommendations of the Committee to which the hon. Member had referred, but it would be found that the Government's proposals as a whole followed in many respects the suggestions of that Committee. The congestion of accommodation in Edinburgh would be completely relieved by the proposals of the Bill, founded largely on the help of the Treasury, who in this matter, he thought, had been considerate and generous. The changes in the Bill would give double space to the National Gallery and to the Royal Academy, and for the latter it would provide a new home. Further, it would contribute largely to provide a new School of Art, and with the help of the Government in this matter, combined with the efforts of the Town Council of Edinburgh and the Scottish Education Department, and the aid of voluntary contributions, they hoped to establish a fitting School of Art in Edinburgh as the capital of Scotland. The Bill proposed to substitute for the present controlling Board a new branch of smaller size and more business-like character, whose duties would be the care of the National Galleries of Scotland and the promotion of the fine arts generally. To the proposal that there should be an element in the Board not nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, but by some outside authority, there were objections which were very difficult to overcome, one being that this was a Board entrusted with duties in Scotland, the execution of which depended largely upon Parliamentary grants. The House of Commons, which contained the only really national representation of Scotland, should have the right to challenge the appointment of any member of the Board.
  *MR. MORTON: How?
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the nomination would be made by the Secretary for Scotland, who was responsible to the House.
  *MR. MORTON: But we shall never get a chance of challenging them.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the House had a perfect right to challenge any action on his part. But the right of challenge would not exist if the nomination was vested in anybody except the Minister responsible to the House, and it was desirable that they should maintain that principle. The second reason for not departing in principle from the proposals of the Bill was that it was exceedingly difficult to have any equal and fair representation of all parts of Scotland. They might take Inverness and leave out Perth. They might take Edinburgh and Glasgow and leave out Perth and Dundee; or they might include Perth and Dundee, and leave out Paisley, Kirkcaldy—
  MR. EUGENE WASON: And Alloa.
  MR. SINCLAIR,continuing, said that even then there were counties which would not be directly represented. The principle required that the nomination of the members should lie under the control of the House of Commons, and the facts of the case supported principle in that respect. For that reason they had departed from the recommendation of the Committee, and were unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutherland. He quite recognised that there was great value in the proposal that the Board should be kept in touch, so far as possible, with local and municipal interests in Scotland, and, provided they could secure that without infringing on the principle he had mentioned, he thought they should do what they could to obtain it. What he proposed to do was to suggest to the House acceptance of an Amendment to the effect that three of the seven members should be members of elected local authorities in Scotland. The small Board would be a more business-like arrangement. Fresh blood could always be brought in to keep up the connection with the local life in Scotland, so that the direction of the interests of art might be according to the real aspirations of the people.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid to could not support
  842
  the Amendment, and he was not more in love with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He complained that the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in two important particulars. Under his proposals there would be no direct representation of the Royal Scottish Academy and other scientific societies, and there would not be a National Gallery in Scotland worthy of the nation. Apparently the present building in which the national pictures were hung was to be turned into a gallery, and any idea of a new National Gallery was to be abandoned for ever.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Not for ever.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid they were asked to sanction a large expenditure for the purpose of turning into a National Gallery a building which, according to the evidence given before the Committee, was absolutely unsuited for that purpose.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think I can allow a discussion on the question of sites and buildings to go on on this Amendment.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASreplied that statements of the kind had been made by the other side, and he failed to see how he could reply to hon. Members if he was not allowed to deal with the points they had raised. But, of course, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He concluded by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had ignored the point of the Committee that there should be representation on the Board of the Royal Scottish Academy and the Society of Antiquaries. He asked for some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in making the appointments under the Bill he would bear in mind the special interests he had mentioned.
  *MR. McCRAEadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent, did valuable service for Scotland as chairman of the Departmental Committee which inquired into this question. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly been fair to the Secretary for Scotland, because if he allowed for the changed conditions he would see that the present Bill was largely framed on the

  843
  recommendations of his own Committee. The Royal Society did not now require extra accommodation, as it was excluded from the purview of the Board. The constitution of the Board with which they were now dealing was entirely on the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee in so far as it gave an absolute majority to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Royal Scottish Academy was not directly represented. He did not know what was in the mind of the Secretary for Scotland, but he was sure that any Board nominated by the Scottish Office would include a representation of the Royal Scottish Academy. In this matter they must trust the representative of Scotland in this House. The Amendment was entirely subversive of Parliamentary control and against the recommendations of the Committee which his hon. friend so largely supported. His hon. friend in proposing local representation ignored the county councils of Scotland. He thought the smaller Board would discharge its duties more conscientiously, and that more responsibility would be placed on each individual member. A great deal could be said for local representation, but if it were to come in, the Secretary for Scotland would have a difficult task before him in justly apportioning local representation over the whole of the country. Perhaps they were exaggerating the importance of local representation, and he would give a word of warning on this point, because if the proposal of his hon. friend were given effect to it would only be representation once removed. He knew no form of representation more dangerous and unsatisfactory than that. If they were to have direct representation Edinburgh had a large claim, not only on account of its geographical situation, and as the capital of Scotland, but because it was going to provide £30,000 for the promotion of a new school of art. His hon. friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs wished the Convention of Royal Burghs represented. That was no doubt a very useful and distinguished body, but it was not specially representative of high art, and there they would have representation twice removed. He saw great objection to a hard and fast line being laid down in the Bill with regard to either the localities or the
  844
  interests concerned, but there was a strong feeling that there ought to be some form of local representation on the board of trustees. He thought the solution of the difficulty was to be found in the Secretary for Scotland's Amendment. The most important thing to secure, however, was that they should have complete Parliamentary control, and that they would obtain if the appointment were left in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, who was responsible to Parliament. They were dealing with money provided by the State, and it was absolutely essential that control should be kept in this House. If in the past Parliamentary control had not been effective it was largely due to the fact that they had had ten years of unsympathetic government. If in future Parliamentary control were not effective the blame would rest entirely with his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland and others who sat in this House. The Minister for Scotland must be held responsible for the administration of Scotland, and he thought those who were objecting to the constitution of the Board ought not to press their objection to the point of delaying the passing of the Bill. It was wanted in Scotland, and they really got so little for Scotland that they ought to take all they could get. This was not a vital point and he hoped Scottish Members would not do anything to delay the Bill, because if they did, it would not facilitate the granting of any further demands, and he was sure they did not wish to give an opportunity to those who believed that the only duty of an Opposition was to oppose, and who, he had no doubt, would take advantage of any stick with which to beat the back of the Government. However, he did not think there was any real desire on either side of the House to delay the Bill, which was accepted as a benefit to Scotland, and he hoped they would unanimously approve Clause 4.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONhoped the discussion would not be prolonged. At the same time it was fair to point out that whilst they were discussing a compromise, it was not a compromise entirely between the Secretary for Scotland and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He recognised that the compromise suggested by the Secretary for

  845
  Scotland was a very fair one, and he should give it his hearty support. The view of certain artistic associations and authorities in Scotland had been very strongly in favour of direct representation upon the Board, but there had been a change of opinion on one side among the witnesses, and the view of those most competent to deal with the subject in Scotland had gone rather away from the Report of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and in favour of the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland. He therefore though this right hon. friend's suggestion was the best solution of the question, and he trusted the proposal would be embodied in the Bill.
  *MR. R. DUNCANsaid it was a sound proposition that the Secretary for Scotland should be responsible for the Board. He thought it was not beyond the power of the House to say that some of the gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman nominated should be representative of art interests in Scotland—who knew art practically, and had given their lives to it.
  *MR. SMEATONsaid he was very much surprised indeed to hear the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. He thought his hon. friend entirely misrepresented public opinion in Scotland with regard to the appointment of a Board which was to manage a great national concern. His hon. friend ought to know that if there was one thing more repugnant to the feeling of Scotland than another it was nominated boards. Unless there was a large share of popular representation on the Board the Bill would entirely fail to evoke in a tangible form the national sentiment of Scotland to aid in the promotion of art. In saying this he was also voicing the opinion of a conference of artists and laymen in regard to the main part of the Bill. He would only quote two sentences from the opinion of the conference and begged the House to weigh thorn well—
  "The Bill will fail of its purpose unless it is altered because it proposes a Board of Trustees to be chosen by the Secretary for Scotland—that is, a purely bureaucratic Board—intended to be national in effect. No Bill could do this, especially in Scotland. It is against the spirit of the people. For a thing to be national in Scotland you must take the nation with you from the start and keep it with you. No matter what label you put on it, such an insti-
  846
  tution can only be truly national if it effectively brings into play the living interest of the nation, interest to equip it, interest to maintain and administer it, and interest to appreciate it."
  A good deal had been made of the argument that because funds in aid were granted by Parliament therefore Parliament—in the person of the Secretary for Scotland—should have absolute control. But what about similar grants to school boards? Parliamentary grants were given to school boards, but those boards nevertheless controlled the schools, and it was surely a good precedent to quote. He was convinced from the number of opinions he had obtained from artists and others that the Bill would entirely fail to promote art in Scotland unless there was a large share of popular representation.
  MR. GULLANDthanked the Secretary for Scotland for the concession he had made, although he had an Amendment which he of course preferred to any other plan. He was not at all afraid that his right hon. friend in his nominations would not have regard to the interests of art; but what he had been afraid of was that his right hon. friend might not appreciate the necessity of having on the Board men who really represented the people and the visitors to the galleries, because under the old Board that was the chief trouble. This Board not only had to buy pictures, but it had to induce people to see them when they were bought, and it was to popularise the constitution of the Board that he had put down his Amendment. But he quite appreciated the desire of the Secretary for Scotland for Parliamentary control, and he thought his right hon. friend had met them very fairly indeed in agreeing that three of the members of the Board should be members of directly elected local authorities. He wanted business men, accustomed to business affairs in town councils and county councils, to look after a matter like this, and to be in touch with the people, so as to see for one thing that the galleries were open on public holidays, and also to remove the obnoxious charge for umbrellas and sticks which was made in the Scottish galleries but not in the English galleries.
  LORD BALCARRESregretted that the hon. Member opposite by implication should have charged

  847
  him and his hon. friends with obstruction. It was not necessarily the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and all he would say was that if the hon. Gentleman would do him personally the honour of looking back on the Parliamentary records he would find that a good many years ago he was the only Member who raised the claim of Scottish art when the question was unpopular in this House, and when such a claim was unheard of in Scotland. They had had a thoroughly business like discussion for forty minutes to-day, and he therefore resented any suggestion of there being a disposition to obstruct, especially as there was only one other question of importance raised by this Bill. He regretted this change in the Bill. He was inclined to think that seven was too small a number to constitute the Board. It was not exclusively a question of buying pictures and keeping the galleries clean. They had to look after Dunblane.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid as a matter of fact the Board would only have to hold the funds for Dunblane and would have nothing practical to do with respect to it.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not realise that the First Commissioner of Works had to be responsible for anything beyond its structure. However it was not a material point, though, of course, to that extent he was wrong. But when they had selected three members from local authorities, there were only four left to be nominated from other bodies, and it was obvious that the Antiquaries must be represented on the board, and it was admitted that the Royal Academy must be represented; that rather reduced the sphere from which the right hon. Gentleman could select representatives. If after two or three years it was found difficult, as he anticipated, to get a regular quorum, it would be a very simple thing for the Secretary for Scotland to have the number enlarged. It was purely an experimental number. He thought it would prove in the long run to be too small. This new Board was not going to be an affair to meet once a quarter, but it was to do its work regularly and properly, and in any case a quorum of three was too small for work of this character. He liked still less the Amendment standing in the name of the Member for Dumfries Burghs. He
  848
  was in favour of a wholly nominated Board, and if the Secretary for Scotland made a bad nomination it was the duty of hon. Members to haul him over the coals. As to local representation, if they chose the three best men for the purpose in Scotland they would not represent local and municipal life. He submitted that hon. Members were setting to work in the wrong way. Each Member representing a Scottish borough would expect his own borough to be represented, he supposed. Edinburgh had almost a right to be represented, and the reason only one municipal or local authority was recommended in his right hon. friend's Report was that only one municipality in Scotland had given towards a National Gallery. He feared they were not going to got a wholly nominated Board as originally proposed by the Secretary for Scotland, and they were not going to get the wholly representative Board as proposed by the hon. Member below the gangway. There was absolutely no guarantee that these men would represent local or municipal life. The right hon. Gentleman could only select from among persons who, at the time of selection, were elected persons. They were to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland, but they could retire from the local authorities without ceasing to be members of the Board of Trustees. He appealed to the Lord-Advocate to say whether that was not what was meant by the words in subsection (1) of Clause 4, that the Board "shall consist of seven members, who shall hold office for five years from the establishment of the Board, and who may be re-appointed."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Thomas Shaw, Hawick Burghs)said that the security taken in the Bill was that the trustee should be a member of a representative body when appointed, but that his appointment might be for a longer term than five years.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid there was no guarantee, that a man would remain a member of the local authority after he had been appointed a member of the Board. If he did not retire from the Board on ceasing to be a member of a local authority, 30 per cent. of the "local touch" might be lost. The Secretary for

  849
  Scotland had given notice of an Amendment to provide that three of the members should be members of elected local bodies in Scotland, and he merely wished to point out that that need not necessarily bring about the local touch which the right hon. Gentleman desired to have. He should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had adhered to the provision in the Bill in this particular, and above all, to the financial particular that followed. He did not admit that any local authority had a direct qualification to appoint a member to the Board. Members of local authorities were elected on wholly different grounds. The case was different in England, where local bodies appointed aldermen because of their special knowledge of various subjects. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully watch the experiment which it was proposed to make, so far as the constitution of the Board was concerned, with the view to amending the Act if it should be found, as he rather anticipated, that seven Members were not sufficient adequately to fulfil the duties.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the noble Lord entirely mistook the feeling on both sides of the House if he supposed that his intervention in the debate was resented. On the contrary they welcomed it. He would say frankly that he thought the compromise proposed was a fair Parliamentary transaction, and one which entitled the House to say it was thankful that the Secretary for Scotland had, in conjunction with Scottish Members and Scottish local bodies, been able to come to a conclusion which scorned satisfactory on all hands. The noble Lord seemed to think that there might be difficulties in obtaining the artistic element from the area of selection. He would simply refer him to two or three municipalities. The municipal Corporation of Glasgow had shown the very highest interest in the development of art in Scotland. The same could be said of the municipalities of Aberdeen and Dundee. Edinburgh also had a good record in that particular. That was a complete answer to the objection that there was not material of excellent artistic quality from which to make the selection. On the whole the Government preferred a system which, on true democratic lines, produced artistic results, rather than to be forced into a
  850
  selection of people called aldermen, of whom they did not happen to have any north of the Tweed. The noble Lord's speech would not be lost on his right hon. friend in making the selection. He conceived it utterly impossible that any responsible person in his nominations would neglect the existing artistic bodies in Scotland. The arrangement now proposed was open to Amendment on the lines which the noble Lord had suggested, but he did not think there would be any difficulty in regard to a quorum. He did not agree with the noble Lord as to the size of the Board, as he thought it was better to have a compact and proper business assembly in matters of this kind.
  MR. CROMBIEsaid the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division rendered great service to Scotland in this matter in the last Parliament, and none of the Scottish representatives resented the part he had taken in the debate. He had good reason for knowing that the Bill and all its details had been most carefully considered by the Scottish Members, and he thought the conclusion to which the Scotch Secretary had come was a fair compromise.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid he had spent thirty years on municipal bodies, and he knew something about them. He infinitely preferred the Board originally proposed to the compromise which the Secretary for Scotland had come to with those who had been squeezing him for the last two or three weeks. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been left with a perfectly free hand. There were not many people connected with the local authorities in Scotland who could be chosen as trustees. Sir James Gibson Carmichael would make an excellent representative, but he had come across very few who could be suitably chosen in the county councils with which he had been connected. He did not wish to sound a note of discord, or to be thought obstructive, but he wished to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not adhered to his original proposal.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he still thought nine would have been a better number than seven, because he was anxious to got a larger representation of outside bodies.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid it should not be assumed that the three largest municipalities in Scotland were necessarily to be represented on the Board. There were local authorities in smaller places from which persons of artistic taste might be chosen.
  *MR. MORTONsaid that nobody could allege that they had had too much time to discuss Scottish questions during this session. This was practically the only Scottish measure which had been brought forward this year, as everybody knew; and when any Scottish Member had to attack the Secretary for Scotland on some appointment which had been made, it was made a personal affair as against the Secretary for Scotland, and if a division were challenged the Party Whips were invariably brought in to outvote the Scottish Members. He did not wish to make any personal attack on the Secretary for Scotland, who was most courteous and gentlemanly, and treated the Scottish Members fairly; but, still, on questions like this the right hon. Gentleman,could by the power of the Government Whips, bring in a majority which could vote down the Scottish Members unmercifully. He complained that they had not had the slightest chance this session of discussing Scottish affairs. He did not see why they should have to attack the appointment of these gentlemen through the Secretary for Scotland. He had been accused of being a simple-minded enthusiast; but his enthusiasm, unlike that of the hon. Gentleman, went beyond the Scots Greys. It seemed to be left to English Members to discuss these matters of Scottish historic buildings, and he confessed that he would like to see a little more enthusiasm among Scottish Members in regard to, for instance, the King's Park at Stirling, which he had saved for the people. He agreed with the noble Lord that the members of the Board of Trustees who represented the local authorities should cease to be trustees when they ceased to be members of the local authority. He wanted to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the new body of trustees, when appointed, would have power to consider the question of a new building for a National Gallery, and the site on which it was to be erected.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that that question was not in order. What they were now discussing was the constitution of the new Board.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he bowed to the decision of the Chairman, but supposed he would have an opportunity later on of raising the point. He confessed that he would have been much better pleased if they had had no Bill at all during the present year than a bad Bill. He thought that the people of Scotland ought to have had more opportunity to consider what was the best thing to be done in this, which was a national matter, and not a mere Edinburgh affair.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'who' and insert the words 'three of whom when so appointed shall be members of elected local authorities in Scotland, the said seven members."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'who' stand part of the clause."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he thought the Committee were entitled to an answer from the right hon. Gentleman on the two points which had been raised, viz., whether the claims of the Royal Scottish Academy and other art societies in Scotland would be considered by the right hon. Gentleman in constituting the Board, and whether he would consider other qualifications when he was making the appointment.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that all the claims and elements mentioned were bound to be considered in constituting the Board. It would be his duty to inform himself to the very fullest possible extent as to every claim that could be made.
  *MR. MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not reconsider the question of increasing the number of the Board of Trustees to nine.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the number of the Board originally proposed was seven, and that had been arrived at after

  853
  very careful consideration. From the point of view of getting a good working Board, he thought the number should be limited to seven; and in that he was supported by his friends behind him; therefore he was very reluctant to make any change in the number of seven.
  *MR. MORTONsaid that that was not the opinion of the Scottish members generally, who thought that there should be a larger number on the Board.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he really could not let this discussion go on. The number of members of the Board was already decided.
  MR. BLACKthought the words of the Secretary for Scotland would limit the area of selection on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The mere nomination of men who happened to be members of a local board did not secure local interest such as would be obtained if the municipalities themselves nominated the members. He, however, did not propose to divide against the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words proposed inserted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 19, to leave out the word 'who."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'who' stand part of the clause."
  LORD BALCARRESasked if the persons who had served as trustees for five years, and on their appointment were members of local authorities, were to be allowed to continue on the Board of Trustees when, they had ceased to be members of the local authorities.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid they would not be continued on the Board of Trustees as representatives of the local authorities; but they might be reappointed in another character.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELLas Deputy Chairman of Committees, took the Chair, in place of Mr. Emmott.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he wished to express the pleasure with which the Members for Scotland welcomed the Deputy-Chairman of Committees back to the House after his illness. He had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "four" in Clause 4, and insert "five of whom may be reappointed."
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment was not in order.
  MR. WATTmoved an Amendment to the effect that when vacancies should occur on the Board new members should be appointed by the Board and not by the Secretary for Scotland. He ventured to think that the Secretary for Scotland had sufficient power in connection with the Board, and that in the event of vacancies occurring he ought to allow the Board to fill them.
  Amendment proposod—
  "In page 2, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'Secretary for Scotland' and to insert the word 'Board."—(Mr. Watt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Secretary for Scotland' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAShoped that the Secretary for Scotland would not accept this Amendment. The words which came before them dealt with a casual vacancy. It was necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should have a large range of choice. The lines of the Bill followed the Report of the Committee in this matter.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, they were following the Report of the Committee upon this subject, and they would stultify themselves if they consented to any change of the Bill in this respect. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. WATTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WATTmoved that the chairman should be appointed by the Board and not by the Secretary of Scotland, pointing

  855
  out that the chairman would have a double power in regard to voting.
  *MR. MORTONseconded the Amendment, to which he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would agree. If they were to appoint a Board which was to have no power except at the will of the Secretary for Scotland, and to do what he told them, the Bill would be absolutely useless. If a board of guardians could not appoint even a nurse without the consent of the Local Government Board, that was not local control If this Bill were adopted in its present shape they would have the same sort of thing in Scotland by and bye, as the right hon. Gentleman would not always be Secretary for Scotland. Why this selected body of seven could not be allowed to appoint their own chairman he could not understand. If they were not allowed to do so it would be better not to have any Board at all, but to leave the whole "show" to the Secretary for Scotland. The representatives of the people of Scotland should have some control; responsibility and control should go together.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 31, to leave out from the begining of line to 'chairman' in line 32, and insert the words 'The Board shall appoint their own."—(Mr. Watt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. SINCLAIRhoped the Committee would give the Secretary for Scotland discretion in the matter. It would largely depend upon the chairman, at least for the first few years, how matters would go, and it was for the Secretary for Scotland to say whether the men selected for this duty were really the men who intended to give time and thought and trouble to the interests of the Board. He asked hon. Members to look to the future and not to the past and to adhere to the proposals of the Bill.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the right hon. Gentleman had asked them to look to the future, and that was the point which ought to be taken into consideration. It would be all right if they were satisfied that the right hon.
  856
  Gentleman was going to be at the Scottish Office for the next twenty years. He thought they might have confidence in his carrying out the Bill in its entirety. But they had to consider how a Tory Secretary might administer it. This was a small reasonable Amendment, and after all there should be some recognition of the democratic principle by a democratic House of Commons.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid one of the great complaints made against the old Board of Manufactures was that there was no continuity of policy, and it was pointed out that one of the reasons was that they had no permanent chairman. He supported the Secretary for Scotland in this matter, and thought that it was of great importance that the Secretary for Scotland should appoint the chairman. They desired to put the responsibility upon the Government, because by so doing a better qualified man would be obtained. If the Secretary for Scotland had the appointment he would have to bear in mind that the person appointed should possess both artistic and business qualifications, and that his action was a matter for Parliamentary criticism. To secure also a continuity of policy the appointment should be made for a considerable period. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would adhere to his proposal.
  MR. BLACKcomplained that during this session only three or four hours had been given for the discussion of Scottish affairs and that time was devoted to the question of pupil teachers. Before discussing the Amendment before the Committee he submitted that the ought to have some explanation from the Secretary for Scotland as to the intention of this clause. Was it the intention to appoint a permanent chairman whose duty was to extend beyond the period of the Board over which he presided, or was it proposed that he should cease to hold office when the Board ceased to exist? If it was intended that the chairman should hold office for five years the clause would require an Amendment.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that briefly the principle that he recommended was that in order that the House of Commons should have full control in this matter

  857
  the chairman should vacate his position at the end of five years.
  MR. BLACKsaid in that case a detailed Amendment was necessary, namely, that it should not be less than one year.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that was a very small point which might be left to the regulations that were to be prescribed for the conduct of the business of the Board.
  MR. MORTON: Would those regulations be submitted to this House?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.
  MR. MORTON:I thought not.
  MR. BLACKasked whether these regulations would say that the chairman should not be appointed for less than one year.
  MR. SINCLAIRreplied in the negative; the regulations would only supplement in detail the main lines on which the Board might act, as laid down by Parliament.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he entirely agreed with the desirability of the Board appointing its own chairman, and as part of the compromise entered into he would not move his Amendment. His hon. friend had reserved one point, namely, that the chairman's appointment should come up annually for confirmation—that if a man was appointed chairman for a period of five years his appointment should come up annually to be confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland so that this House might have an opportunity of criticising that gentleman if he failed in his duty in any way. He would, therefore, like to move to insert the word "annually."
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment could not come in at this point.
  MR. MORTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that those regulations would not be laid on the Table of the House, and his hon. friend had spoken of withdrawing his Amendment as part of a compromise. The so-called com-
  858
  promise was not a compromise with the whole of the Scottish Members but with one or two who had given the rest away. What the Scottish Members wanted was to adhere to the principle that the Board should have the appointment of its own chairman and its own officers down to the office boy. He repudiated this compromise by three Scottish Members. It was quite contrary to what the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate had agreed to at a previous meeting.
  MR. GULLANDsupported the Secretary for Scotland from whom he thought the nomination should come. He thought the selection of seven men would give him a very good range in which to find a man for this position. The right hon. Gentleman might not appoint the man most fitted to carry through the business, but they should trust him further and let him appoint the chairman.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid there would be great difficulty in getting continuity of policy unless the chairman was appointed for at least five years, and there was some advantage in allowing the chairman to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. Only last week this was brought to his mind with reference to a Board with which he was connected. There were six members, three on each side, and the chairman had died and for the whole of the year the business of the parish had ceased to proceed. It took him one hour and twenty minutes to get into the chair, but directly he got there they got through the business.
  MR. WATTsaid he recognised that he had not sufficient support upon this point, and therefore he would withdraw his his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. MORTONmoved an Amendment to insure that the Board when appointed should have control of the appointment of their own officers. Unless they had the right of appointment they would have no control. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would give them something in the way of democratic government even if that something was only in the direction of enabling the Board to be master in their own house. It would

  859
  make the Board more self-reliant and more efficient if they had the right of appointing their own office boy even, than if they had nothing to do with the appointments at all.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words 'Secretary for Scotland' and insert the word 'Board."—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. SINCLAIRthought his hon. friend hardly understood the importance of an Amendment of this kind in such a Bill. By common consent one of the most important offices was that of secretary to the Board. A great deal would depend upon the experience of the officials of the Board. It was essential therefore that the House should have control over these appointments and be able through the Minister responsible to Parliament to criticise them. As this clause did nothing more than give the control which this House insisted on retaining with regard to the officials of all the Boards of Scotland, it was desirable that this clause should be retained. It was not put in in order that the Secretary for Scotland should interfere in the administration of the Board in its own business. There would not be the least desire to interfere with the work of this Board any more than there was a desire to interfere with the work of other Scottish Boards.
  MR. PIRIEsaid that what they complained of, as Scottish Members, was an absence of control over the affairs of their own country. The Secretary for Scotland was right theoretically, but practically he was wrong. What he said was that the secretary of this Board would be a most important official and therefore should be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. But, at the same time, while it gave the nominal control to the Scottish Boards working in Scotland, the real control was vested in the Secretary for Scotland instead of, as it should be, in the Scottish people. He desired that the Scottish people should be satisfied as to the true reason for every Amendment which had been moved, and in that
  860
  regard the debate had done good by showing the whole Scottish nation how its interests were neglected in this House.
  *MR. MORTONthought the Secretary for Scotland might rest content with having the appointment of the secretary in his hands, and allow the Board to appoint all its other officers. It was a very dangerous way of conducting business not to allow them to appoint their own officers, and had worked very badly in many Boards in this country. If he (Mr. Morton) gave up the appointing of the secretary, surely the Secretary for Scotland would allow the Board to appoint other officers. [Mr. SINCLAIR dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He would allow no power whatever. That was a mistake, and it was wrong to try and push this Bill through the House at this late period of the session.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the secretary was to be appointed for five years in the same way as the chairman. The whole difficulty of that would be that, being appointed by the Secretary for Scotland, he would in a certain extent be the master of the Board instead of their servant. He would be able to say that he was elected as secretary for as long as the Board existed, and it was quite conceivable that a certain class of gentleman might make it very awkward for the Board. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in the appointment which he made, would take care that the Board was master of the secretary, and not the secretary the master of the Board.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member need have no fear upon that point.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he apprehended that the secretary of this Board would not occupy the same position as an ordinary secretary. He would be, so to speak, the adviser of the Board and would assist in the purchasing. He would be what might be called the buyer.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the secretary would be purely and simply secretary of the Board, and in every sense the servant of the Board, and he would be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland

  861
  in the same way as other important officials of other Boards in Scotland were appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to all minor officials, there was not the same need of care in their appointments, and there would be no interference with them. Those appointments would be under the control of the Board itself.
  *MR. STEWARTsaid there was a very strong feeling among the supporters of the Government that their proposals were far from adequate in this matter and that more power should be given to the persons forming this Board. They were willing, however, to agree that the Secretary for Scotland should appoint subject to the approval of the Board or vice versa. That was a kind of compromise which should be acceptable to the Scotch Secretary, and it would give the Board a dignity which they ought to have. If a permanent official were to be thrust upon them against their will, he would become, the master of the Board of which he was nominally the servant.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid under the circumstances he certainly thought it was necessary to leave considerable power to the Board.
  *MR. MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter on Report and endeavour to meet the Scottish Members in some way?
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he would be delighted to refer again to the practice of other Boards and see what change could be made in the Bill. The hon. Member for Greenock need not be under the least apprehension that this official would not be the servant of the Board. He would also point out that whoever was trusted with the approval of the appointment, the real power lay with the person who had the final say in the matter, and that was the Secretary for Scotland. This system was recommended as being the one which would cause the minimum of friction and the maximum of efficiency.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.

  Clause 6:—
  MR. SINCLAIRmoved an Amendment dealing with the allocation of sums out of the general fund of the Board of Manufactures. He said he would like to take this opportunity of stating the financial arrangements which were consequent on the new distribution of buildings carried out by the Bill. At present, as the Committee were aware, the Board of Manufactures had for its resources a capital sum of about £38,000, and an annuity of £2,000, called the service annuity, from the Treaty of Union. That was supplemented by a small grant. He should mention that the responsibilities which fell upon the Board of Manufactures in connection with these galleries, and which were defrayed out of the funds he had mentioned, were, in the first place, the cost of maintenance of the buildings, which represented approximately £1,130 annually; and, in the second place, the payment of the officers of the various institutions, giving a total of £2,560. In aid of that expenditure they received a grant of £800, which left the average annual expenditure at £1,760. The expenditure in future would be increased by the maintenance charges which would be due on the new buildings to be occupied by the Royal Society. So it might safely be estimated that the total charges of maintenance in these two respects would not be less than £2,000 a year. These were the present arrangements, and would hold until the Bill became law, when the Treasury had agreed to enter upon new arrangements which were much more satisfactory and much more generous. That was really the consideration which he thought should prompt them to do everything they could to pass the Bill into law. Members were aware that the first result of the distribution of buildings was that the Royal Society, which had hitherto occupied rooms in the Royal Instution building, would leave those and go to new promises which were to be acquired for them, leaving the Royal Institution building as a whole for the occupation of the Royal Academy. In its present condition, however, it was not adapted for use as picture galleries, and considerable expenditure would be required to fit it for that purpose. That expenditure would be borne entirely by the Treasury, and it would reach a sum

  863
  of £14,000. The outline sketch plans for the adaptation of the building promised to be entirely successful, and to give complete satisfaction not only to the city of Edinburgh, but also to artists. Then came the question of the expenses, which amounted to not less than £2,000 a year. That charge had hitherto been borne partly by a grant of £800. It would in future be borne by the Treasury and by Votes in Parliament. The Treasury would thus fit up the new Royal Academy at a cost of at least £14,000. They provided by the Votes £2,000 a year, which was at present borne by the Board of Manufactures as part of its annual expenditure. Then there was a sum of £1,000 a year which was already enjoyed, dating from the publication of the report, and was now given for the purchase of pictures. In addition to that the Board of Trustees would have at their disposal £2,000 a year, being the Scottish annuity. That would form part of their income for the purposes of art in Scotland. These were the details of the income of the new Board of Trustees. One further change must be alluded to. The School of Art, which had hitherto occupied premises in the Royal Institution, would be removed to other premises as a result of the combined effort of the Edinburgh Corporation and other bodies. Out of the capital sum of £38,000 belonging to the Board of Manufactures, it was proposed to give a sum of not more than £10,000 as an aid to the establishment of this School of Art. He had now to mention the arrangements proposed for the housing of the Royal Society. For that purpose it was proposed to expend £28,000 of the capital in the hands of the Board of Manufactures. A sum of £25,000 would go to the purchase of a building, and £3,000 would cover the expenses of fitting up, redecorating the new premises, and transferring the library and other effects of the Royal Society to the Royal Institution. The Treasury were giving the Royal Society a grant of not more than £600 a year. At present the Royal Society received a grant of £300 a year, which grant was paid by them as rent for the part of the Royal Institution which they now occupied. In future the Royal Society would be placed in occupation of their new premises, and they would also have the grant of £600
  864
  a year for scientific purposes, and would be free from any obligation to pay rent. He thought it would be conceded that the Treasury had been, not extravagant in this matter, but generous. Some criticism might be directed to the proposal to employ part of the accumulated funds of the Board of Manufactures in the purchase of a building for the Royal Society. On more than one occasion, however, the savings of the Board of Manufactures had been employed in the erection of buildings. Notably they made an important contribution of £47,000 in the year 1823 for the erection of the Royal Institution building. The Royal Society from that date had occupied rooms in the Royal Institution building, and had certainly a claim to be considered in any new arrangements which involved their removal from those rooms. Under the arrangement proposed the Royal Society had received nothing but fair treatment. The money could not under the circumstances be put to any better use than to be invested for the nation in the premises about to be occupied by the Royal Society. The effort of the Government had been to treat with equal consideration the claims of science and of art. The new Board of Trustees would find themselves unfettered by any other consideration than the duty of promoting the fine arts of Scotland and caring for the National Galleries. They would also find themselves in possession of a very handsome income, which would be devoted to these purposes. On the other hand, the Royal Society would be placed in a position, he hoped, of equal comfort in regard to their accommodation, though, perhaps, the new accommodation would not have the historic interest which the occupancy of the Royal Institution had. They would also find themselves in possession of a handsome income to be devoted to scientific purposes, he hoped that these new arrangements, which would give much greater liberty, much greater scope to the interests of art and science in Scotland, would also give an encouragement and a stimulus to those who were actively interested in Scotland in art and science, and make them feel that they had public support behind them in maintaining the position of Scotland in these progressive times in regard to both art and science.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 17, at beginning, to insert, '(1) It shall be lawful for the Secretary for Scotland to allocate out of the General Fund of the Board of Manufactures such sums as may be prescribed (a) towards the building and equipment of a School of Art in Edinburgh; (b) for the purchase, erection, and equipment of buildings, and for the purchase of any land necessary in connection therewith to be vested in the Commissioners of Works, and to be used for the purposes of the Royal Society of Edinburgh until otherwise prescribed with the consent of the Treasury."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ANNAN BRYCEasked whether they were to understand that the whole of the £1,000 a year, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, would be devoted to the purchase of pictures?
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid it would be clear as an income of the Board of Trustees.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid he understood they were to pay all the expenses out of that.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No. At present they paid their officers and the maintenance cost of their buildings. Both of those charges would, under this arrangement, be undertaken by the Treasury.
  AN HON. MEMBER: It was a debtor and creditor account so far as the Treasury was concerned.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid it was not. This money had been accumulating for years. The Board of Manufactures had not been a very enterprising body, and matters had been rearranged so that all these Boards should have a definite income and a definite purpose.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid he wanted to ascertain what net clear amount of money in the future would be available for the purchase of pictures.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the Board of Trustees were not obliged to spend every penny in the actual purchase of pictures; they had also a distinct duty to care for the national galleries and promote the fine arts in Scotland. They had a clear
  866
  income of £3,000 unfettered by any obligation as to management.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCEasked whether a certain proportion of that amount would go in payment of expenses. If so, it would be necessary to distinguish between the payment of expenses and the amount available for the purchase of pictures and objects of art.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the maintenance expenses would be paid for them. The Board would have in the first place a grant of £1,000 a year from the Treasury, which would be expended in the purchase of pictures, and it would probably have an income from the Scottish annuity of £2,000 a year, which they would spend as they thought proper within the limits of the Bill—it might be on pictures. The officers of the Board would be paid by the Treasury.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid if he referred back to the Estimates he thought he would be able to show that a specific grant of £1,000 was allotted to Scotland for the purchase of pictures. That was the amount Ireland had received for generations. This Amendment, which had been on the Paper for forty-eight hours only, would change the whole scope of the Bill. The truth of the matter was that the Secretary for Scotland was going to take art money to pay a science obligation. He was prepared to show that this money was art money in spite of the fact that the Board of Manufactures had control over the sciencebuilding—the Royal Society Building. This scheme gave the Secretary for Scotland two powers—to take out of invested capital as much as he thought fit, first, for the School of Art in Edinburgh; and, secondly, for the erection and equipment of buildings for the Royal Society. On the first point, he did not much like taking the money of the Board of Manufactures for building a School of Art in Edinburgh; but, at all events, it was an art purpose, and as such, to his mind, was less objectionable than the second item of the scheme, which was to take the capital of the Board of Manufactures to pay for the Royal Society. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee earlier in the debate that the new Board would have nothing whatever to do with science,

  867
  and that the sum of money required for the Art School was about £10,000; but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell them how much of the remainder was to be allotted to the Royal Society. The total, he understood, was £38,000, so that there was a balance of £28,000, which could be devoted to that purpose. This Amendment was inconsistent with the original Bill altogether. Under Clause 6, as introduced, all property belonging to the Board would be in future vested in trust for the promotion of fine art in Scotland, and under that clause it would not have been right to hand over this money to pay for the Royal Society. The Royal Society had been for sixty or eighty years in those buildings, which were largely built for them by the Board of Manufactures. The origin of this money could in no way whatever be credited to science. Science had never paid the Board of Manufactures except their rent. No portion of the accumulated funds, except perhaps an odd thousand or two, could be ascribed to science, although an immense amount could be definitely ascribed to art. The income from accumulated capital was insufficient to buy first-class pictures, and a few hundred pounds spent in the 'forties, 'fifties, and 'sixties well spent would have gone further than as many thousands spent to-day. Therefore, from the point of view of accumulating money for the purchase of works of art, the policy was indefensible; but that was no reason why the money should now be taken away from art and given to science. It was an obligation of the Government to rehouse the Royal Society at their expense, and not at the expense of the Board of Manufactures, out of Scottish money. The right hon. Gentleman had said the Royal Society was to get £600 a year from the Exchequer. The Treasury had been generous towards the Royal Society, but its generosity towards that institution was very much counterbalanced by a marked lack of generosity towards the Board of Manufactures. Up to a very few weeks ago it was quite understood that the Government was going to rehouse the Royal Society. [An Hon. Member: It is.] He did not think they could say that the Government was going to pay for the rehousing of the Society if the actual sum for the purpose was coming out of the Board of Manufactures. Five
  868
  or six years ago the hoarding of this money by the Board of Manufactures was criticised, and then somewhat suddenly they spent £5,000 or £6,000 on a picture, lout the Royal Society never suggested at that time that any equivalent grant should be paid over to them. It never occurred to them to do so; they did not look upon the accumulated funds of the Board of Manufactures as belonging to themselves in any sense. He would like the legal opinion of the Lord Advocate if he were wrong in saying that the present Board of Manufactures as constituted was entitled to go into Bond-street and spend £35,000 on a picture next week. Legally and technically he believed that would be within their rights. At all events there was a strong prima facie case that this money was, and always had been, regarded as art money. The Treasury had been generous to the Royal Society at the expense of the Board of Manufactures. What he had looked forward to was a strong new Board competent to give expert advice, who, on accession to office, would be able to make a start and purchase works of art for Scotland. There was no public gallery in Europe in which the proportion of pictures presented by private individuals was larger than in the National Gallery of Scotland. Of the pictures 98 per cent. were private donations and only 2 per cent. purchases by the nation. He submitted that the £38,000—apart from the £10,000 for the School of Art—belonged to the nation to be spent in the promotion of art in Scotland.
  *MR. THOMAS SHAWadmitted that according to the point of view from which the noble Lord presented his case there was at first sight a great deal to be said for the arguments he used. In short, the noble Lord had dealt with one side of the account only. The proposal to which the noble Lord really took exception was with regard to the £28,000, which remained after the grant of £10,000 to the School of Art. If the situation were left as it was the result in his view would be to lose an opportunity of benefiting the Royal Society and also of benefiting the cause of art in Scotland. The National Gallery would have been under the old arrangement left under the obligation to pay their own officers out of the £28,000, which, if invested in ordinary quarters, would produce about

  869
  £1,000 a year. Instead of that his right hon. friend—and he congratulated him on his transaction with the Treasury—had transformed the whole position, and had said, "Let the capital go and in place of the Treasury giving a miserable £1,000 a year let it give a handsome grant." What the Treasury had done was three-fold. In the first place it had agreed to defray all the working costs equal to £2,000 a year, it had consented to buy pictures up to £1,000 a year, and it had made a new grant of £2,000 a year in perpetuity.
  *MR. MORTON: All Scottish money.
  *MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the Treasury had put the £2,000 a year which was Scottish money on to the Consolidated Fund. Accordingly there would be now a gross income for the National Gallery of £2,000 to pay the working charges, £1,000 for pictures, and £2,000 out of the Treasury with which sum pictures might also be purchased and other expenses defrayed In the promotion of art. He was not sure that the noble Lord was right in putting the situation of the Royal Society on the low platform he had placed it. He did not think the Royal Society would have been able in a Court of law to establish a legal claim, but after having been accommodated for so many years it would be a Parliamentary outrage to dispossess the Royal Society without giving them somewhere else to go—especially so, as the dispossession resulted in a benefit to art, because they had increased the buildings available for art to the extent to which science had been dispossessed. It was an entire mistake to think that Scottish money had been encroached upon. For what had been utilised for the Royal Society, more than a quid pro quo had been got by an annual revenue on a scale hitherto unknown. Looking all round the subject he thought the transaction had been a fair one, and he thought, upon the whole, seeing what they had been accustomed to from the Treasury for the past ten years, it had been a very happy change for both sides.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid it was a deal no doubt, and to some extent it was probably an improvement on the present position, but he was afraid he
  870
  could not admit the claim of the Lord Advocate that it was a very great improvement. The Treasury were discharging the whole of their obligations in respect of the School of Art by the £10,000 which was proposed to be taken from the £38,000, leaving £28,000 which of course, would have been left at interest to pay the expenses for which the Treasury were going to assume the responsibility. All that the Treasury, however, was really doing was to give the difference between £1,640 and £2,000. Undoubtedly there was to be an expenditure of £14,000 on the Gallery, but they were going to substitute that for what amounted to £1,640, and they were only going to retain the £1,000 grant and the £2,000 of Scottish annuities.
  *MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid the matter was very much stronger than he at first put it if the hon. Member took into account the £14,000, because, assuming the £28,000 was being taken away, at the same time half of that was being spent upon the repair of the buildings, and, in addition, there was the annual cost defrayed on the scale he had mentioned.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid he gave the Lord Advocate credit for the full £14,000, but what he wanted to point out was that, although the Bill was to a certain extent advantageous, it was not so advantageous as the right hon. Gentleman made out in his very able arguments, and it did not discharge the full obligation of the Treasury to Scotland in this matter. He thought the Treasury might have been a little more generous and themselves provided for the Royal Society.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid he did not think the Treasury were doing too much in this matter, although he thought Scotland stood to gain a great deal under the Bill. In future the Treasury would discharge certain obligations by which Scotland would get a clear gain of £2,000 a year. In addition to that they would get £14,000 which the Treasury was going to give towards reconstruction of the National Gallery. He would like to know from the Secretary for Scotland whether, in addition to that sum, there would also come

  871
  from the Treasury an extra £300 for the Royal Society. That would make an addition of £2,300 a year at least. The noble Lord opposite had raised the question of the proportion, not as between the Treasury and Scotland, but as between art and science, but he appeared to have left out of account the fact that the accumulations which amounted to £38,000 were originally derived from the Board of Manufactures, and from that point of view science had a fair claim to a share of the money. Under the proposed arrangement art as distinguished from science was getting the use of the buildings. They were getting a grant from the Treasury which certainly was better than before, and therefore between science and art he did not think there was any grievance. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was to be complimented on the patience and tact with which he had carried out some very delicate negotiations in regard to this measure, and he thought the Royal Society were to be congratulated because they had come very well out of the negotiations.
  *MR. MORTONsaid they had not had much time to consider the effect of these proposals, but as far as he could calculate he thought the answer would be "thank you for nothing." Scotland would not get anything out of the arrangement which she had not already got. It was notorious that some millions of money were due to Scotland if she only got her legitimate share. It had been said that the proper way to succeed in this matter was to be always in debt, and then there was some chance of getting assistance from the Treasury; but because they had been economical in Scotland and had saved money it was now proposed to take it away from them. He had listened carefully to the speech of the Lord Advocate, who was an excellent lawyer, but it was a well-known fact that lawyers knew nothing about finance, and he did not see that the arguments he had put forward helped them at all. His brief was badly drawn. He had mentioned the sum of £28,000, but he had forgotten to tell the Committee that that sum was really £38,000, and it was only after they had taken £10,000 away for something else that it was reduced. The Lord Advocate had
  872
  tried to make a great point as to the transfer of the £2,000 annuity from the Estimates to the Consolidated Fund. There was really no difference, whether the £2,000 came from the Estimates or the Consolidated Fund except that if it remained on the Estimates, this House retained control, whereas if placed on the Consolidated Fund this House lost all control, and that he supposed was the real object of the Scottish Office in making this proposal. The Lord-Advocate had stated that the Board of Manufactures could spend the whole of the £38,000 if they thought proper, but the Secretary for Scotland had already arranged to devote £10,000 to the School of Art, and he was going to take the remaining £28,000 on account of the Royal Society. He agreed that that Society ought to receive consideration, and they had a moral right to occupy the building on the Mound. He understood that they preferred to be left at their present buildings, because they would not be so well off if they were moved even when they got £28,000 for the building and possibly another £600 per annum. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about some plans, but he had not seen them. Could they not leave it to the Board of Trustees to consider where the new building should be and what should be done with the money? They might consider the question whether there ought to be a new National Gallery upon another site altogether. According to the evidence given before the Committee the present site on the Mound was not considered to be a good one.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that an Amendment will be moved on this particular point, and therefore the hon. Member ought not to discuss it now.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he was making those remarks with the idea of saving time instead of proposing the Amendment referred to. All he was asking for was that in regard to money Scotland should be treated as well as England or Ireland, and he thought they had a right to demand that under this new arrangement. His right hon. friend ought not to be afraid of the Treasury. Scotland contributed a vast sum of money to the revenue.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very wide of this Amendment, and he is talking about increasing the grant. That is a question upon which no Amendment can be moved.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would not be satisfied until Scotland was treated at least as well as the other parts of the kingdom.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that in finding a new home for the Royal Society he objected to the Government using money which was ear-marked for other purposes. He thought the Treasury might have been a little more generous in this matter; they had not given that amount of money to Scotland which they naturally expected considering that nine-tenths of the Cabinet were Scottish representatives or Scottish Peers. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman's decision upon this question. He thought it would be a pity to utilise the Institution buildings for purposes for which they were not originally intended. The Royal Society were well housed, and in his opinion they were in a far better position than the one which had been suggested. He wished to protest against robbing art to pay science. He thought it would have been far more generous on the part of the Government if they had found the necessary money to pay for these alterations rather than have appropriated money which had been ear-marked for other purposes and which ought to have been spent for special purposes instead of being hoarded up. He regretted that any portion of this money was to be used for the purpose of rehousing the Royal Society.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that during the discussions which took place in the Committee there were many difficulties to be encountered, and one of them was what was to be done with the Royal Society. It was held that if the Royal Society had to be moved it could only be moved to suitable quarters, and he ventured to assert that the proposal now made by the Secretary for Scotland had at least solved that difficulty. The Committee ought to remember that this was a difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues attempted to deal with in the
  874
  last Parliament, but as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, there was many a slip between the Report of a Committee and the carrying out of their recommendations. By this measure the Secretary for Scotland had succeeded in solving some of those difficulties, although hon. Members might differ in regard to the amount which ought to be paid to the Royal Society. He was prepared to defend that amount. He had been a member of the Royal Society for twenty-five years; it occupied very convenient quarters for its purpose, and it was thought that at any rate that Society He should like to know whether they should be as well housed in the future as it had been in the past. He had considered these proposals very carefully, and he did not think they could honestly say that the Royal Society ought to be content with any sum less than that which was offered them. But even supposing they were paying a few thousand pounds more than the most rigid economist thought the Society was entitled to, surely it was worth the money to get this difficulty out of the way.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid no one grudged the money; what they objected to was the source from which it was taken.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there was nothing in the Report of the Committee to say that the Royal Society ought not to be housed at the expense of the Board of Manufactures, because that Society was housed in its present quarters at the expense of the accumulated funds of that Board. Provision was made for its accommodation and the whole expense of the Royal Institution buildings were paid for out of the accumulated funds of the Board of Manufactures. There was absolutely no reason why those funds should not boar part, if not the whole, of the necessary expense entailed by the housing of the Royal Society. He earnestly urged the Committee to accept this settlement so as to put the National Gallery of Scotland on a firm foundation, and thereby promote the study and advancement of fine art in that country.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONwas quite prepared to accept the proposals of the Government, but not as a final settlement

  875
  of the question. He did not think these proposals satisfied the just claims of Scotland with respect to either art or science. Scotland was greatly in arrears in the matter of grants of public money. It had been stinted for the last twenty years, and when hon. Members made representations in favour of fresh expenditure the late Prime Minister used to remind them that he was a Scotsman, until he himself came to accept that as an intimation that some unparalleled injustice was going to be inflicted on his country. That was their experience of the way in which Scottish claims were met when the Tory Party were in power. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent in his regret that the money was to be drawn from a reservoir which might have been used for another purpose. There were Scotsmen in the late Government, and except in regard to what was done by the noble Lord, who played a conspicuous part in the inquiry, he had never been able to detect that anything was done by the late Government for the advancement of science and art in Scotland. He did not rise for the purpose of indulging in Party recrimination, but he wished to point out, as a matter of fact, that they had these great arrears to make up in Scotland. He looked upon this as the first step, but he thought it was far from a final settlement.
  *MR. SMEATONmoved as an Amendment to the Secretary for Scotland's Amendment to leave out "prescribed" and insert "decided upon by the Board of Trustees." He wished to get rid of the word "prescribed" which meant prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland. Even after the special pleading of the Lord Advocate he thought a perfectly clear case had been made out by the noble Lord in regard to what was called the general fund. That fund had been in the course of many years raised by savings of money which ought to have been devoted to the purchase of pictures. It was, as the noble Lord had shown, a Scottish Art fund, pure and simple, Although they were told that this Bill had nothing whatever to do with science, here was a proposal to insert words in the clause directing that money which belonged to the art of Scotland was to be allocated to science
  876
  and art in such sums as the Secretary for Scotland might prescribe. He thought the Board of Trustees ought to be left to decide as to the allocation of the fund. There might be other places in Scotland besides Edinburgh which desired and deserved encouragement in the foundation of art institutes. Why should they not get that encouragement? Edinburgh had not been prominently liberal in the past; it was certainly very inferior to Glasgow. The Board of Trustees would recognise where encouragement to art ought to be given. It seemed to him that the use of the fund ought to be made over entirely to the Board, and that on no account should any portion of the money which ought to have been spent years ago on the purchase of pictures be devoted to the equipment of buildings which had no connection with art. He disputed the right of the Secretary for Scotland thus arbitrarily to apportion to alien purposes money which ought to be devoted to the encouragement and development of Scottish Art.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 2, to leave out the word "prescribed," and insert the words "decided upon by the Board of Trustees."—(Mr. Smeaton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. SINCLAIRasked his friend not to press the Amendment. He hoped he was not wrong in interpreting the general sense of the Committee as being in agreement with the proposals of the Bill The history of the Board of Manufactures made it clear that the Royal Society were occupying buildings to which those funds had contributed, and they were doing no more than applying the money to the purpose to which precisely it had hitherto been applied. The scheme of the Bill rested on an agreement between parties which had been arrived at only after considerable consultation with the various interests concerned. He was entirely in accord with what had been said as to its not being a final settlement, but at any rate they had taken the first step. None of these arrangements ever were final, and he hoped that the development of art and science in Scotland might be such as to

  877
  justify fresh demands on the Treasury. The development of science and art were greatly retarded at present by the conditions under which the Royal Society, the Royal Academy, and the National Gallery carried on their work, and it was in the interest of all the different bodies that the new arrangements which were contemplated should be introduced at the earliest possible moment.
  *MR. MORTONsaid the Amendment to the Amendment would give the new Board something to do and some control of their own affairs in their own house. What the Secretary for Scotland proposed was that the allocation of the fund should be done in a way hon. Members did not know anything at all about.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. This clause simply gives authority to carry out arrangements which I have already outlined to the Committee this afternoon.
  *MR. MORTONsaid his hon. friend's proposal was that the Board of Trustees should have power to say how the money was to be allocated. What the Secretary for Scotland proposed was that the allocation of the fund should be done in the way he prescribed. What he and his friends were endeavouring to do was to get an efficient, independent, and intelligent body to act as Board of Trustees.
  *MR. SMEATONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, expressing the hope that some more equitable distribution of the money might be made.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he had taken an active part in the negotiations, and he congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on the arrangements he had made for housing the Royal Society. He also congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on securing from the Treasury a grant of £600 a year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. MORTONmoved that the property held in trust by the Board of Trustees should be applied towards the completion of the national monument on the Carlton Hill to serve as the National Gallery for Scotland. He thought the Carlton Hill would be a magnificent site, and he would be satisfied if he got an assurance that the Board of Trustees would have the right to consider the suggestion. He understood that the corporation of Edinburgh had spent a hundred guineas in circulating a handsome book on this subject, and that showed that they thought the matter worthy of consideration. If that site were selected, he believed there would be no difficulty in getting sufficient money from Scotsmen to supplement the Government grant in order to erect a building which would be worthy of Scotland and of the city of Edinburgh. He understood that the corporation of Edinburgh were willing to give a site on the Carlton hill. That would be a good beginning. He begged to move as a matter of form.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, to leave out lines 23 and 24, and insert the words 'towards the completion of the National Monument on the Carlton Hill to serve as the National Gallery for Scotland."—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he could not agree with the Amendment, because he did not think on artistic grounds the National Memorial in Edinburgh suitable for a National Gallery. He was bound to say that he still adhered very strongly to the view of the Departmental Committee that there should, sooner or later, be secured in Edinburgh a National Gallery worthy of the nation. The Committee came to the conclusion that no alteration of the existing buildings would make a proper gallery for Scotland. It was pointed out to them that, situated as the present gallery was on the Mound, with the vibration of trains passing under it, and subject to the influence of smoke which was detrimental to oil paintings, they should hesitate permanently to house art treasures there. The Committee, however, recommended that the gallery might be

  879
  used for temporary exhibitions of pictures. The Committee came to the conclusion that the scheme as to the Royal Institution—though not an ideal one—might serve for a time: and that if carried out they would still have a crowded gallery and there would be no room for expansion. At any rate, the Treasury must not come to the conclusion that they had settled the question of a National Gallery for Scotland for all time. He only gave his personal view, but he had considerable connections with Scotland and knew Edinburgh well, and from his own observation he had come to the conclusion that the present site of the National Gallery and the Royal Institution was fatally objectionable for any proposed new National Gallery, even if a building suitable for it could be there erected. They ought to get away from the present site with its smoke from the railway, to another site on which a National Gallery could be erected that would be an honour and glory to the city of Edinburgh and worthy of the nation.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that all the Government put forward for this scheme was that it was practical, that it was suitable for the needs of time, and that it did not stand in the way of any larger development which might come hereafter. He could assure the hon. Member for Sutherland that if he brought forward his scheme at a future date it would by duly considered.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he was very glad to have had the able assistance of the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's. This was not a political matter. As he understood now, the trustees would have the power at a future time, not necessarily far off, to consider a new building on a new site.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that no doubt the Board would have full power to consider any proposal for a larger scheme which the hon. Member for Sutherland and his friends might came forward with sufficient funds to carry it out.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he hoped that the new body of trustees would be more patriotic than the Lord Advocate. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

  Clause 7:—
  MR. SINCLAIRmoved to insert after the word 'works' the words "in the case of the two first mentioned buildings."He wished to make a brief explanation that the fund of £3,000, which had been contributed for the maintenance and repair of the fabric of Dunblane Cathedral would be held by the Board of Trustees and devoted for that purpose just as it was now held by the Board of Manufactures. The Committee might rest assured that there was complete agreement between the Government and the authorities of Dunblane Cathedral.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 29, after the word 'works' to insert 'in the case of the two first mentioned buildings."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he understood that in future whatever money was necessary for maintaining the fabric of the Cathedral beyond this £3,000 would be given by Parliament.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that the agreement distinctly stated that the Board of Trustees were to be charged with the maintenance and repair of the Cathedral.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the agreement come to with regard to this ancient and historic building.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 30, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'in the case of the two last-mentioned buildings for the purposes and subject to any rights for or subject to which such buidings are presently held. The said buildings."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
  MR. BLACKsaid he had an Amendment to propose on Clause 7, line 30, to

  881
  insert after "and" the words "together with any buildings vested in the Commission of Works for the purposes of the Royal Society of Edinburgh."
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid that subject to the concurrence of the Treasury he would introduce the Amendment on Report.
  MR. BLACKsaid that on that understanding he would withdraw his notice of Amendment.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 3, line 39, leave out the word 'endowment' and insert the word 'repair."(Mr. Sinclair.)
  "In page 3, line 40, at the end, to add 'Provided that nothing in this Act contained and nothing done under this Act shall have the effect of imposing upon the heritors of the parish of Dunblane any obligations from which they were free at the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  MR. C. E. PRICEsaid he wished to move a new clause providing that the Royal Scottish Geographical Society should, during the pleasure of the Secretary for Scotland, remain in undisturbed possession of the rooms at present occupied by the Society in the National Portrait Gallery, rent free. He very much regretted that in the very interesting and satisfactory review which the Secretary for Scotland had given to the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, his point being that this Bill dealt with art, and not with geographical science. The lease of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society of the present promises expired last year, and they were now asking for some security of tenure. The society had done some excellent work for Scotland and the world; and he questioned whether there was any Geographical Society that had done better work. Its membership numbered 2,000, and it had branches in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dundee, and there was a request for a branch to be established in Perth. The society received no grant from the Government, and while the Royal Geographical Society of
  882
  England received a grant of £500 a year, the Scottish Society was charged £120 a year for rent. The Society had a large number of maps which were always open for inspection. Further, a resolution had recently been passed that the teachers of Scotland should have the privilege of becoming Members of the Society on payment of £1 1s., instead of £2 2s. He hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would give some assurance that the modest request made in the Amendment which he proposed would be acceded to.
  MR. EUGENE WASONseconded the adoption of the new clause, and associated himself with all that the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh had said, he would point out that in the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Education, a hope was expressed that it might be possible to forego this rent of £120 a year. This was a small thing to ask for, when it was remembered that the Royal Geographical Society of England received a grant of £500 a year.
  New clause—
  "The Royal Scottish Geographical Society shall, during the pleasure of the Secretary for Scotland, remain in undisturbed possession of the rooms at present occupied by them in the National Portrait Gallery free of rent."—(Mr. G. E. Price.)
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. CROMBIEsaid he might be permitted as one who had taken a prominent part in the negotiations in regard to this Bill to express the hope that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. He sympathised with the claim of the society to public support, but the Amendment would do the society no good, and would take away the ground for a claim for a grant from the Treasury, while the remission of the rent would simply be the transfer of the amount from one Scottish institution to another.
  LORD BALCAREESsaid that, if this Amendment was carried, a charge of £120 a year would be put on the country, and

  883
  he did not think that any private Member had a right to make such a Motion. The hon. Member had spoken of the grant of £500 to the Royal Geographical Society of England, but the obligations attached to the grant actually involved a loss to the Society. Everybody knew that the Royal Scottish Geographical Society was a most admirable institution, perhaps the best of its kind in Great Britain; but he strongly objected that the existing rooms which they occupied were suitable to such a society, and he thought that those rooms should be added to the accommodation of the Antiquarian Museum, or the National Portrait Gallery.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he wished to bear testimony to the excellent work done by the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, but he objected to the clause proposed by the hon. Member on the ground that it would deprive the new Board of Trustees of a part of its income, and fetter the discretion of the Board in giving consideration to any claim that the society might put forward in the ordinary way to the Treasury.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he had looked into the point raised by the noble Lord the Member for Chorley, and his opinion was that the clause was out of order as it involved the creation of a public charge. It was incompetent for a private Member to move such a Motion.
  MR. C. E. PRICEaccepted the decision of the Chairman, but he wished to say that the debate had been eminently satisfactory to Scotland, and it would be most ungracious to press the Amendment to a division. He hoped, however, that the Prime Minister would use his influence to secure that something should be done by way of grant from the Treasury to the Royal Scottish Geographical Society.
  Clause withdrawn.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he wished to support his hon. friend, and would move his Amendment omitting from it the last three words viz., "free of rent." That would do something for the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, as it would enable them to remain in undisturbed possession of their present quarters.
  New clause—
  "The Royal Scottish Geographical Society shall, during the pleasure of the Secretary for Scotland, remain in undisturbed possession of the rooms at present occupied by them in the National Portrait Gallery."—(Mr. Morton.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. PIRIE,in supporting the clause, expressed the hope that the Scottish Geographical Society would receive better treatment than they had received in the past. No society had done more useful work than the Scottish Geographical Society, and no body had been more shamefully treated.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he had a good deal of sympathy with the present position of the Scottish Geographical Society. The question now before the Committee was whether the Bill should provide that the society should continue in its present offices without disturbance. There was no question of cost. His hon. friend had only asked for an assurance that some consideration should be given to the claim of this society to remain in undisturbed possession of the rooms they now occupied. He would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland whether he could not give an undertaking that in his official capacity he would send a communication to the new authority laying before them the claims of the society.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid he was one of the trustees of the Scottish Geographical Society, and as such he desired to say a word in support of the appeal made by hon. Members opposite. Not only had the society done remarkable work of a national character, but in its rooms was housed a very admirable library, which was consulted by people from all parts of Scotland and by many colonial people also. He believed it would be a real national loss if the society were liable to be summarily ejected from its rooms and to lose the use of that library.
  MR. SINCLAIRassured his hon. friends that there was not the least reason to think that the transference of the powers of the old Board of Manufactures to the new authority would be

  885
  in any way hostile to the interests of the Scottish Geographical Society. They were not yet possession of materials which could enable them to pass judgment on the question of whether or not this Society deserved financial support from the Government. He appealed to his hon. friends not to prejudge the matter at present. It was a mere accident that the Scottish Geographical Society now occupied rooms in the National Portrait Gallery, and he did not think it would be a businesslike proceeding to fetter the new authority with any conditions of the kind proposed. They should not confuse the issue raised by the Bill with that of the welfare of the Scottish Geographical Society. The claims of the society could be considered on their merits at the proper time, and he was sure those claim would have much better prospect of favourable consideration at the proper time than they could have at the present moment. He begged the friends of the Scottish Geographical Society to be content to-day with the very emphatic testimony which, had been given to the public appreciation of their work in Scotland.
  MR. PIRIEsaid he would be willing to fall in with the appeal of the Secretary for Scotland on the distinct understanding that when the society did make a claim for further consideration they would be treated in a different manner from that in which they had been in the past by the Government.
  MR. DALZIELregretted the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to make the small concession asked for.
  MR. RAINYasked the Secretary for Scotland if he would go so far as to say that, in the event of the Geographical Society being removed from its present promises, he would see that the claims of the society were pressed on the Treasury.
  *MR. R. DUNCANsaid the Committee had had an interesting discussion, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been received with general good humour. He thought, however, that he showed far too much of that caution which was generally supposed to be a characteristic of the North. He asked
  886
  for a definite pledge that the claims of the Geographical Society should be borne in mind and that no harm should happen to it.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he could not conceive anything more likely to prejudice the position of the society than the adoption of the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. He thought the safest course was to leave the matter where it was. He had strong sympathy with the Geographical Society, but there were other societies, and they had to consider the general interests of the community. He promised to give his most careful consideration to the claims of the Geographical Society when the proper time came.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONagreed with the Secretary for Scotland that this was a matter that stood by itself. When the Scottish Estimates came up next session they could raise the whole question and endeavour to get a proper grant for the Scottish Geographical Society.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [22nd November] on Consideration of the Bill, is amended (by the Standing Committee).
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'subsequently at such intervals,' and insert the words 'and each year following."—(Sir George Doughty)—instead therfore.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part f the Bill."
  MR. MYERas a point f order stated that they had been assured that this Bill was not coming on. He moved the adjournment of the debate, which he said had been sprung upon the House, This was a most important Bill of a very far-reaching and revolutionary character. It was not

  887
  alone the large manufacturers who were called upon to give a return of their production and wages, but it included the lowest and the smallest, and it involved a penalty such as he ventured to say there was not a precedent for in any other Act of Parliament. A man who employed a couple or three men to do little repairs on his premises, in ease he did not give a proper return of the wages or the amount which he had expended on purchasing material, was liable to a penalty.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not in order in making a Motion for the adjourment to discuss the Bill. He must confine himself to discussing the Motion for adjournment.
  MR. MYERsaid it was for the purpose of supporting the adjournment that he was referring to the effect of the Bill. Of course he would submit to the ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he contended that he was perfectly in order in pointing out his reasons for moving the adjournment of the debate. The Bill inflicted a penalty of a magnitude almost equivalent to capital punishment on these small manufacturers and owners of small businesses, and in his opinion the Bill was part and parcel of a scheme of collectivism and possibly socialism.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member must not discuss the Bill in this way. He was entitled to argue that the importance of the Bill was such that it could not now be discussed with advantage, but he must not go into matters of detail as to the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. MYERsaid in that case he would content himself with moving the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. CREMERseconded the Motion, as he thought they had good grounds for postponing the discussion. No timely notice had been given to the House for the proper consideration of this measure, or for the consideration of the Amendments on the Paper, of which there were no less than forty-eight, many of them of a vital character. Many of thorn, moreover, were not proposed by the Opposition, because eighteen of
  888
  them had been put down by the Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and in addition six Amendments had been given notice of by the Minister in charge of the Bill. He thought it was too bad at that late hour to bring the Bill forward and call upon the House seriously to consider a measure of this inquisitorial character when everybody expected to get away. The Whip circulated that morning contained no intimation that the consideration of the Bill would be resumed, and he understood that several hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper had gone away, as some kind of assurance that the Bill would not come on that afternoon had been given. He thought, therefore, they were justified in asking that the Bill should be postponed, and that it should be brought on at a reasonable hour.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Myer.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs)trusted that the Motion would not be pressed. It was the second dilatory Motion made from the Ministerial side of the House that day, and the consequence was that a good deal of time had been wasted. He was sure, however, that it was not the intention of his hon. friend to waste the time of the House. His hon. friend sat on the Committee, but he did not recollect that he passed a single criticism on the Bill, and that was an opportunity of which he might have availed himself had he objected to the measure. Although the Amendments were forty-eight in number they were not so formidable as they looked, and most of the Amendments he had put down were agreed to by the opponents of the Bill.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that if, as stated by an old and respected Member of the House, there had been an understanding that the Bill should not be proceeded with that afternoon, and if in consequence of that hon. Members with Amendments on the Paper had gone away, the proposal to go on with the debate was a serious one.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEintimated that if such were the case he could not proceed. But he was not aware of any such understanding.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTentered a protest on behalf of the hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who had ventured to disobey the "muzzling order." It was exceedingly hard, he said, on a well-disciplined House like that which the Government led, that when one or two Members ventured to make a protest about particular items in a Bill, they should be treated in a very severe way by the right hon. Gentleman. He made his protest in the name of liberty of debate, and freedom of discussion. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who differed from the
  Government on particular issues should be allowed briefly to express their views without being sat upon.
  MR. MYERasked leave to withdraw the Motion, as there might be an opportunity of raising the matter on the Third Reading.
  Leave being refused,
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 16; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 498.)

  AYES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cremer, William Randal

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Wortely, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W

  Liddell, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Mr. T. L. Corbett and Sir

  Craig, Capt. James(Down, E.)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Frederick Banbury.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Alden, Percy

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Henry, Charles S.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Courthope, G. Lloyd

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hills, J. W.

  Barlow,John Emmott (Somerset

  Crean, Eugene

  Hogan, Michael

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crombie, John William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crooks, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beaumont, Hn. W.C. B.(Hexh'm

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Joyce, Michael

  Billson, Alfred

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lough, Thomas

  Brace, William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lundon, W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lynch, H. B.

  Brigg, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bryce. J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Crae, George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Kean, John

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Killop, W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Ginnell, L.

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

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Grant, Corrie

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gulland, John W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Meagher, Michael

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Halpin, J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Clough, William

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Reddy, M.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ure, Alexander

  Murphy, John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, H. Anderson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Whitbread, Howard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sears, J. E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Sheehy, David

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Grady, J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wiles Thomas

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williamson, A.

  O'Malley, William

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Paul, Herbert

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Younger, George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Price C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ridford, G. H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Ridclifie)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Pease.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved an Amendment providing that the interval before the second and subsequent censuses should be determined by order made by the Board of Trade as soon as practicable after the taking of the first census and laid before both Houses of Parliament. He explained that the Amendment would meet suggestions made on the other side. It would give Parliament an opportunity of deciding after the first experiment what interval they would like. He thought it was undesirable to decide what interval should elapse before they knew how the first census had gone.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'intervals' and insert the words, 'such intervals as may be determined by an order made by the Board of Trade as soon as practicable after the taking of the first census and laid before both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)asked whether his Amendment standing on the Paper to make the intervals "of not less than five years,"
  892
  ought not to come before the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid Government Amendments had precedence.
  LORD R. CECILsuggested that his hon. friend's Amendment ought to be moved before that of the right hon. Gentleman. It was not at all contradictory to the words of the Government Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid there was some debate in Committee as to whether there should be an interval of one or five years. Both suggestions came from hon. Gentlemen opposite. By way of alternative he put forward the proposal he was now making, and it was absolutely inconsistent with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that having regard to the character of the previous debate the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Albans could not be moved before the Government Amendment as it was an alternative proposal.
  *MR. CARLILEsaid in that case he would have to content himself with stating his objection to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, namely, that

  893
  at the present time the whole subject of the Bill was before Parliament. When, however, the President of the Board of Trade asked Parliament on a future occasion to fix the date of the next census the subject would not be fresh in the minds of hon. Members. In the United States the interval between these censuses was ten years, but he thought five years would be sufficient. If, however, the returns were to be made annually the right hon. Gentleman and his staff would be unable to grapple with the work, and as a result, instead of a complete and reliable production, they would have a hurried Return made from an ill-digested mass of documents. He did not wish to hinder the passage of the Bill, but he thought the House should decide now what the interval was to be, instead of leaving it to the President of the Board of Trade to decide from time to time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not from time to time. That is the alternative. My suggestion is to decide once for all by Order what those intervals should be.
  *MR. CARLILEsaid that by the time the first Returns were in the hands of Members they would have forgotten a great deal of what the Bill contained, and any suggestion that was then made would not meet with the intelligent consideration that it would receive at the present time, when the minds of hon. Members were concentrated upon the Bill. He suggested that it would be better to allow the House to decide now what the first interval at any rate should be.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid the Amendment standing in his name to leave out the words "as may be prescribed" in Clause 3 was only a drafting Amendment which he would not move if the right hon. Gentleman thought it was unnecessary, but the words seemed to him to be a repetition.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendment would make the sentence ungrammatical and would not permit the carrying out of the work.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Then I shall not move the Amendment.
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEYmoved an Amendment providing that the particulars to be called for should include the capital employed. He said he was not quite sure whether these particulars might not be obtained under the permissive words at the end of the first sub-section of the clause, and which might be narrowly or widely interpreted according to the judgment of the President of the Board of Trade or the permanent officials. If he had an assurance that the words were covered by the sub-section he would not proceed with his Amendment. If not, he would like to point out that particulars as to capital employed were one of the most important details to be ascertained if they were to get a true idea of the progress of industry. In the United States these particulars were obtained, and were of great value. To some extent they could be ascertained in this country, owing to the limited liability system; therefore he did not think his Amendment would add much to the inquisitorial character of the Bill, and the gain would be very great.
  MR. HILLSseconded the Amendment. It was, he said, of enormous importance that they should know from time to time the amount of capital invested in home industries, and he did not think the Amendment would impose any additional burden on manufacturers.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 21, after the words 'relating to the,' to insert the words 'capital employed."—(Mr. Chiozza Money.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. In an experiment of this kind they must proceed very tentatively and not so as to alarm manufacturers. The Bill represented very largely a compromise between those who opposed it altogether and those who were anxious to see it passed, and he was bound, by the pledge he gave in Committee, to

  895
  oppose anything which would extend the operation of the Bill. He trusted, in order that the Bill might be got, hon. Gentlemen would not attempt to extend it. If they did the Bill would have to be dropped altogether.
  SIR E. CARSONwas glad the right hon. Gentleman had given this intimation. He too hoped that the scope of the Bill would not be extended, because it was one of a very experimental character. Putting in the words "capital employed" would really give nothing, because were they to take the actual capital, some of which might have been lost, or were they to take the capital which might have increased? If it was to be worth anything some scientific valuation would be necessary. The words "capital employed" was an ambiguous phrase.
  MR. MYERsaid that if his hon. friend knew all about limited liability companies he would be aware that the nominal capital did not in any way represent the capital value, and therefore the information his hon. friend desired would be absolutely valueless.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved to leave out the words which prescribed that the particulars to be supplied should include the number of days on which work was carried on. He could see no great advantage to be derived by including these particulars. They would be misleading, because there were days on which the only work done was in making up or taking out fires; and in certain cases work began late on Sunday night. As they all desired to get the Bill through he had no desire to occupy time, though he could see serious trouble in the preparation of the forms.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTseconded the Amendment, and remarked that the Opposition had no desire to embarrass the Government, but only to get the Bill into workable shape.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words 'the number of days on which work was carried on."—(Captain Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEaccepted the assurances of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were anxious the Bill should pass, but he trusted this Amendment would not be pressed, because the information had to be got in order to ascertain the condition of trades in any particular year. Ofcourse, the number of days employed in attending merely to boilers and so forth would be taken into account.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGintimated that he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. SMEATON,who had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after "employed" the words "the amount of wages paid," said he did not recollect that this question had been fully discussed in Grand Committee.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was discussed very fully, and as a result of the arrangement arrived at between both Parties it was decided to leave these words out.
  *MR. SMEATONsaid there were in a subsequent clause words which showed that in order to get at the value the amounts paid to the contractors were taken into account, but there were hundreds of industries in which there were no contractors, and it was to them chiefly that his Amendment applied. After the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, however, he did not desire to move.
  MR. WARDLEsaid he would move the Amendment. It seemed to him that to ascertain these particulars was a very easy and simple matter, and if it was necessary to know the number of days people were employed, surely it

  897
  was quite as necessary to know the amount paid in wages in order to get at the real state of an industry. The last census of wages taken in this country was in 1886.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to say it would be dealt with next year.
  MR. WARDLEsaid if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring in another Bill dealing with this point he would not move this Amendment.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved to leave out from the particulars to be returned "the power used and generated." His object was to elicit the view of the President of the Board of Trade as to the way in which the returns could be utilised if not only power generated but the same power used was returned. At present a very large number of manufacturers frequently employed power which was brought in from outside, and he could not see that much value would attach to a return unless these words were struck out and duplication thus avoided. He begged to move.
  MR. LIDDELLformally seconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words 'and the power used or generated."—(Captain Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that it was in order to prevent duplication that both terms were inserted in the Bill. They would have returns separately of power used and of power generated.
  LORD BALCARRESasked what the answer would be about power used and power generated? Would it be as to the nature of the power or the quantity? Would the answer be gas, electric power, or steam, or would it be 5,000 or 10,000 horse-power?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Horse-power and nature.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid it would be very difficult for a good many firms to say what their horse-power was. They might have machinery for 5,000 horse-power, although they might only use that power occasionally. He thought the number of days employed would also be a meaningless figure and the same with the power.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR E. CARSONmoved the insertion of words expressly excepting the amount of wages from the particulars to be supplied. The clause as it stood seemed to leave it open to the Board of Trade to make any inquisitorial examinations they pleased and add them to the form prescribed under the Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 24, after the word 'nature' to insert the words 'except the amount of wages."—(Sir E. Carson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid if the right hon. Gentleman pressed these words he would not resist his Amendment. A census of wages could not be taken under the Bill, and the Government were not going to wait for the census under this Bill for a census of wages. By another Bill they would take one earlier.
  MR. BARNESsaid that it was twenty-one years since the last wages census was taken, and it was not satisfactory to have such a census at these long intervals instead of, under this Bill, probably every two or three years.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, as a census of wages could not be taken under the Bill, he had not thought it necessary to put in words to make it clear that it could not be done, but he did not object to the Amendment.
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid the supposed objections to inquiries about wages were over-rated. In 1886 the Board of Trade conducted a wages census on a voluntary basis and fully 75 per cent. of the firms applied to for particulars returned their forms. This showed how exaggerated were the objections to compulsory inquiries.
  *MR. CARLILEsaid the amount of wages could be of no possible value. If the total amount of the wages was embodied, it could be no guide to the Board of Trade whatever. Supposing a railway company gave out work to contractors, it was possible that both the railway company and the contractors would make returns for the same work, and the result would be a duplication of returns which would be misleading. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment the duplication would be avoided.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the words as they stood in the clause were really to prevent duplication in cases where part of the work was let out. If they were to have a Return from a manufacturer and another from a sub-contractor, that would give the appearance of a greater volume of trade than the facts warranted.
  MR. CARLILEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 17, to leave out sub-section (d)."
  "In page 2, line 27, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'upon receiving notice in writing from the Board of Trade to that effect."
  "In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words so far as practicable."—(Mr. Carlile.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. SMEATONmoved an Amendment to Clause 4 to provide that a separate summary of statistics for Scotland should be presented with the Report to Parliament. When the Bill was before the Committee upstairs a special concession was made that the Report to Parliament should contain a separate statement of the
  900
  statistics obtained in Ireland. He thought Scotland had an equally good claim to the same concession, for there were some industries which were peculiar to the country, notably Jute manufactures and fine sewing cotton. He had another reason for his Amendment. He believed that the summary would show that Scotland contributed a larger proportion of the total production of the United Kingdom that was generally understood: and that, therefore, Scotland should obtain better terms from the Exchequer than she at present enjoyed.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 40, after the word 'Ireland,' to insert the words 'and a similar separate statement for Scotland."—(Mr. Smeaton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEaccepted the Amendment.
  LORD BALCAERESasked whether the inclusion in the report of a separate statement in respect of Scotland would add £2,000 or £3,000 to the cost.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should not think it will cost very much.
  *MR. CARLILEmoved to leave out sub-section (3) of Clause 5 which provided that the Board of Trade, if they thought fit, might arrange to transfer to other Departments "any of their powers and duties under this Act as respects any particular industries or class of industries," and further that the Board might "delegate to a Committee containing representatives of the Departments concerned all or any of their powers and duties" in relation to statistical Returns of production. It seemed to him to be most undesirable that this power of delegation should be conferred on the Board of Trade. The success of the census would depend on the confidence which the people of the country had in the absolute secrecy of the Board of Trade in dealing with the Returns, and that confidence would be very much lessened, if not absolutely destroyed, if the Returns were

  901
  to be furnished partly to one Department and partly to another.
  LORD R. CECILseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 12, to leave out sub-section (3)—(Mr. Carlile.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 22, at the end, to add, 'Provided that the Board of Trade shall not transfer its power, to make rules under Section 8."—(Mr. Smeaton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR E. CARSONmoved to omit the word "individual" from Clause 6. He thought it was the intention of the Government that no specific Return should be divulged, although it would, of course, be necessary to give the results of the Returns in combination for the information of the House and the public. If they did not insert the words of the Amendment some person might argue that the aggregate in a trade might be published without the written consent of the person making the Returns, because it was not an individual Return.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 23, after the word 'individual' to insert the words 'or collective."—(Sir E. Carson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'individual' stand part of the Bill."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was afraid that that would be a rather dangerous Amendment. After all, the object of the Bill was to obtain information, and if no answer was made by any firm which
  902
  could be published, the object of the measure would be defeated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he moved his next Amendment to meet a request which had been made in Committee upstairs.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 26, to leave out the words 'persons making the Return,' and insert the words 'owner for the time being of the undertaking in relation to which the Return or answer was made or given."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, lines 35, and 36, to leave out the words 'makes any disclosures,' and insert the word 'Acts."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 36, after the word disclosures,' to insert the words 'or use aforesaid."—(Mr. Carlile.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not accept this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert, (2) 'For the purposes of this Act the expression 'individual Return' shall include any Return or Returns made by any one person, partnership, company, or association of persons and, where any trade or business is carried on by any company in whole or in part by means of any subsidiary company or companies, any aggregate of two or more returns made respectively by such company and subsidiary company or companies. In this section a company shall be deemed to be a subsidiary company when not less than three-fourths of its ordinary share capital is held by another company. (3) When any trade or business is carried on by such a small number of persons or companies that if Returns were published for any particular district, county, or part of the United Kingdom, it would be possible by inspection of such Returns to obtain information as to individual Returns, then no Returns shall be published for any such district, county, or part of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Carlile.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had an Amendment of which he had given notice which would accomplish the same object as that of the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the object of the Bill was not to get information in regard to any individual business, but to obtain a national balance sheet. Therefore he moved the Amendment to which he had referred.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert the words, 'Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade any trade or business is carried on by any company in whole or in part by means of any one or more subsidiary companies, any aggregate of two or more Returns relating to the trade or business so carried on shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as an individual Return. A company shall be treated as subsidiary to another company for the purposes of this provision if not less than three-fourths of its ordinary share capital is held by that other company."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he understood that in lieu of the words put down by the hon. Member for Thanet, the President of the Board of Trade proposed to move another Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was so. He proposed to move that anyone communicating information derived from these census Returns without lawful authority, should be liable to two years imprisonment, or to a fine.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 40, at the end, to insert the words 'if any person having possession of any information which to his knowledge has been disclosed in contravention of the provisions of this section, publishes or communicates to any other person any such information, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both imprisonment and a fine."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR E. CARSONthought that the House should have full opportunity of considering this Amendment, and the effect of it, and he hoped that the matter would be re-considered before the Report stage.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to say that the words would be re-considered before the Report stage.
  LORD BALCARRESmoved in Clause 8 (power of Board of Trade to make rules) to leave out sub-section (b) for the purpose of asking the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement as to the exemption of small businesses. As the clause at present stood anybody who repaired a gas pipe or who did any other trifling work of repair would have to give particulars to the Government. The schedules were all embracing, and the powers of the Board of Trade were very far-reaching indeed. In the United States they expressly stated in their census of production that it was for wholesale businesses and not for retail businesses. In the United States there were, more-over, numerous exemptions which included blacksmiths, wheelwrights, boot and shoemakers, carpenters, and other shops and works. In fact everything which was not of the nature of a retail business was excluded. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would make a general statement of policy in regard to the exemption of small businesses, as at present the clause was most objectionable in regard to them.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 21, to leave out sub-section (b)."—(Lord Ba carres.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas sure the noble Lord moved this proposal with a view, not of pressing it to a division, but merely to obtain an explanation. It was perfectly clear that they must exempt very small traders. To impose this census on them would be very harassing and

  905
  expensive, and he did not think the result would be worth anything. He could not say now what were the particular classes which would be exempted. He would rather wait until he had the benefit of the advice of the advisory committees of experts and business men which he hoped to set up to assist the Board of Trade as to the general lines on which they ought to proceed. He hoped he should not be pressed for a declaration of policy at the present moment, because it would be imperfect.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not consider they could expect the right hon. Gentleman to make a general declaration of policy at that time nor did he think anyone could claim that he was not going the right way about this proposal, but he urged the necessity for drawing a wide distinction between the large manufacturers and employers and the small man who was struggling on his own behalf. His experience was that every day they were making it more difficult for the small man to go ahead, and, while this Bill would throw comparatively little trouble and expense upon the big man, there were many men with moderate businesses who could not keep their accounts in such a way as to give the Return asked for without adopting a new system. He hoped the line would be drawn in a very generous way.
  LORD BALCAREESasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 26, at the end, to insert '(d) All rules made in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before Parliament."—(Lord Balcarres.)
  In page 4, line 28, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'and engaged in."—(Sir Albert Spicer.)
  "In page 5, line 5, after the word 'thereof,' to insert the words 'or to be made acquainted with any information contained in any answer to any question put for the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  LORD BALCARRES (on behalf of Sir Frederick Banbury)moved to leave
  906
  out Clause 10 (intervals for making Returns under 1 Edward VII., c. 21, Section 130). The clause repealed Section 190 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and he objected to a Board of Trade Bill being introduced which had the effect of repealing a Home Office Act. The section in question directed that the Home Office should take from employers Returns about employment not more than once a year, and not less than once in three years, and the Secretary of State determined what those periods should be. It was worse than legislation by reference. The Return of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was much more important than this Return of the Board of Trade. That was a Return which dealt largely with the employment of women and children. If the right hon. Gentleman settled on an Annual Return, well and good, because then the Secretary of State for the Home Department could continue demanding Annual Returns. He did not think the House ought to give to the Board of Trade the power to settle the intervals of this obligation and allow it to vary the obligation which had been so clearly laid down.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the effect of this sub-clause would be precisely what the noble Lord had stated, but the Return now collected by the Home Office was of limited value. The statistics at present collected by the Home Office, showing the age, sex, occupation, and number of persons employed, were of very small value to statisticians and others. The Return embraced something like a quarter of a million of separate factories and workshops and four millions of people, and the compilation and printing of the figures involved a great deal of expense. In the present year the Department had only been able to publish figures relating to 1901. The statistical branch of the Factory Department in the Home Office employed nineteen persons, and notwitstanding this staff and the money spent statistics were published which were too old to be of any use to anybody. It was very desirable to reduce where possible the enormous printing bill paid by the nation, and it had long been desired to make the publication of this Return at longer intervals. It would be absurd for the

  907
  Home Office to collect these figures at three year intervals and for the Board of Trade to collect the same figures perhaps at five year intervals. Under this clause the two Departments would collect similar figures and co-operate in the work so as to make the statistics comparable with each other. Each department would try to make the census correspond.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid this clause would enormously alter the obligations resting on the occupiers of factories and workshops. If the change was made it would have the effect of a statutory rule. It was not to be made public in any way, and occupiers of factories and workshops would not know the Return which they would be required to make until some provision was made which would in some way make these directions public to those concerned.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the forms were always sent out from the Home Office; the initiative did not come from the employer, but from the Home Office.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid his objection was that the hon. Gentleman had taken this opportunity to discredit the value of Returns which had nothing to do with this Bill, and of which it would be impossible to make any use in the Board of Trade census. The whole speech of the hon. Member went to show that these Returns were of no use to anybody, that even he, who was a devotee of statistics, had never had occasion to look at them. He told the House also that these statistics were a most expensive document for the State, and that a staff of nineteen in number was employed to collect them. In fact, the whole trend of the speech of the hon. Member was such as to persuade him that, so far from enacting this law to keep this Return alive, what the hon. Member should have done was to have
  908
  brought in a short Bill abolishing the Return altogether. Inasmuch as this Bill added to the necessity of collecting other Returns of a similar nature in factories, workshops, and other places of employment, he should have thought it would have been some relief to have got rid of this particular Return. The real objection the noble Lord had in moving this Amendment was that the Bill sought to give power to an official of the Board of Trade to repeal all or any part of an Act of Parliament. They were continually crying out about legislation by reference, but this principle of allowing a man in a public office to do this sort of thing was the most vicious that he had ever heard of.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 35, after the word 'continues,' to insert the words 'and in respect of false returns and answers the offence shall be deemed to continue until a true return or answer has been made or given."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. CARLILEsaid it did not seem to him to be a proper thing if there was a delay in getting information that the Board of Trade should have the power to go behind the backs of the owners or agents and get the information from the manager. It was because he thought that ought not to be done that he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 5, to leave out paragraph (b), and insert—'the owner of every mine or quarry or his agent or manager duly authorised by him in that behalf."—(Mr. Carlile.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think the House should accept this Amendment, because he had adopted these words from the Coal Mines Act.
  *MR. CARLILEsubmitted that the Coal Mines Act might be wrong in this. They were bringing this procedure up to date, and he thought his words would be an improvement. The right hon. Gentleman had been so considerate to the Amendments he had moved that he hardly liked to press this, but he thought it was almost essential that some such words should be inserted.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would consider the point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD R. CECILthought it would be unfair to require people like small builders or decorators—people who did a little repairing work or alterations, and who were not occupiers of factories or workshops in the ordinary acceptance of the term—to make this return.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 7, to leave out the words 'repair or decoration."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. STUART WOETLEYmoved to omit subsection (d), in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining how he intended to provide in respect of the laying of gas and water pipes.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, to leave out sub-section (d.)"—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that all they wanted was a general result. Those matters would have to be considered very carefully, and the point raised by the right hon. Member was one of these which would have to be considered.
  MR. J. WARDasked for information with regard to repairs.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is an Amendment on that point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD R. CECILmoved to leave out "or any prescribed works." The words, he said, were likely to cause discontent and remonstrance when the Bill came to be put in practice. The Government had decided it was necessary to run the risk of this discontent, but he felt that the House should not sanction more than was necessary to carry out the object the Government had in view. If the Government, however, were prepared to say the words were necessary he would not press his Amendment, but if they were not necessary to carry out their object then he hoped they would let the Amendment go through.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 13, to leave out the words, 'or any other prescribed works."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied that it was necessary to put the words in to cover possible cases which might arise. They were not so wide as they appeared, and it was not intended to cover everything under the sun but only matters of a kindred nature.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that if the Government considered the words were necessary then he did not wish to press his Amendment.
  MR. J. WARDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way. The words were absolutely necessary.
  LORD BALCARRESfailed to see why the Government required these extending

  911
  words. The point we already covered in the lines which stated "any place where steam, water, or natural power is used." The expression "workshops" meant places where "any manual labour was exercised by way of trade, and for the purposes of gain, the making of any article, or any part thereof, the altering, repairing, or finishing of any article." That seemed to him to cover nearly all the industries, and therefore he failed to see the object of the words contained in the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEappealed to the House to allow the Bill to pass Third Reading, in order that the Government might send it up to the Lords in time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  LORD BALCARREShoped that the Bill would be reprinted as soon as possible.
  MR. CREMERsaid he did not desire to divide the House upon the matter, but he wished to protest against the Bill. He did not think there were many Members who were particularly desirous that the Bill should pass into law. [Dissent.] Well, at any rate, that was his impression. He was still in the dark as to the practical advantages which would be derived from this Bill passing into law. He did not know it was necessary to put down an Amendment to a sub-section of a schedule to ensure that it would be discussed. What he wanted to say in reference to sub-section (e) was that, in common with many other principles of the Bill, it was absolutely unworkable.
  912
  For instance, there was not a West End shoemaker, he believed, who did not give out his work, and only a small number of tailors had their own workshops. The same thing applied in regard to cabinet-making in the East End of London. With regard to sub-section (c) of the schedule, did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that if he asked a jobbing builder or decorator to paint his rooms or hang paper on the walls it would have to be returned in the census? The Bill seemed to be essentially of an inquisitorial, objectionable, vexatious, and irritating character. He failed to see that any advantage could be derived from it. It was clear, however, that it would add to the army of officials, and the country was already sufficiently official-ridden. He would content himself with registering his protest against the Bill. He did not think it ought to be passed, and he doubted whether very many Members desired that it should be passed. He knew one large employer of labour who was a Member of the House, but un fortunately absent through illness, who had stated that he would give £1,400 a year rather than this Bill should become law. It would compel employers to engage more clerks and was altogether of a vexatious character. He would oppose the Third Reading, though he did not propose to divide the House.
  Bill was read the third time, and passed.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at twenty-one minutes after Seven o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ardrossan, Saltcoats and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dumbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Falkirk and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill. (No. 246.) Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. (No. 247.) Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a; (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee, and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against; of inhabitants of parish of Fretherne; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): My Lords, I beg to move, in accordance with the notice I have given, that Standing Order No. XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session. I may say that I have not the slightest intention of applying that Motion to any contested matter if I can possibly help it.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No, XXXIX. be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, in rising to move that this Report be now received I desire to make a brief statement with regard to some observations made by my noble friend opposite, Lord Mayo, on an earlier stage of the Bill. I ought no doubt to have challenged the statement when it was made, but I ask the leave of your Lordships to call attention to it on this occasion. The statement made by the noble Earl was to the effect that Sir Antony MacDonnell went down to Loughrea to quell a disturbance that arose there, and threw out a suggestion that he would facilitate the passage of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill through Parliament or possibly introduce some particular clause into the Bill. I desire to say, on Sir Antony's behalf, that that was not the case. He went down to Loughrea to quell what might have been a very awkward disturbance, and he was successful in the accomplishment of that very difficult task; but he gave no such pledge and made no suck statement as the noble Earl suggested in his speech the other night. This is what occurred at the conference at Loughrea. A certain gentleman named Duffy asserted that the Under-Secretary had given some undertaking with regard to the passage of this Bill through Parliament; but Sir Antony MacDonnell then said—
  "I gave no such pledge from the beginning to the end of this transaction. The Chief Secretary has given no pledge in connection with this business, and I myself have given no pledge whatever. I have most carefully avoided the discussion of any matter except the question of the cessation of resistance to the execution of the sheriff's writ."
  The whole of the representations made by Sir Antony at the conference held at Loughrea were as to the absolute

  783
  unwisdom of pushing to any further extremes the resistance to the execution of the sheriff's writ. I am quite sure the noble Earl opposite would not desire to misrepresent the action or words of anyone, and, after what I have said, he will probably wish to withdraw what he stated the other night. I think it is only the barest justice to a distinguished public servant like Sir Antony MacDonnell that I should make the brief statement that I have thought it my duty to make on this Motion.
  Moved, "That this Report be now Teceived."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I should like to say, first, that I am extremely obliged to the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving me notice last night of his intention to make this statement. I am very sorry that any words that fell from me should have hurt Sir Antony MacDonnell's feelings. He is an official for whom I have the greatest respect. His Indian record was quite sufficient, especially for one who bears the name I bear, to make me respect him. If Sir Antony MacDonnell's visit to Loughrea was construed by everybody in Ireland to mean quite a different thing from what he really went down for, it was the fault of His Majesty's Government; because in May, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Attorney-General for Ireland pointed out that—
  "It was the principle of compensation for disturbance as applied to agricultural holdings that undoubtedly led to the fixing of fair rents, and, directly they admitted the principle of compensation for disturbance in the case of town tenants, it became necessary to consider the propriety of fixing fair rents, and he thought the House should pause and consider whether it was right to allow rents to be fixed on all shops and houses held for the purpose of residence."
  Then in June the Loughrea evictions took place, and the whole of the Press in Ireland took Sir Antony MacDonnell's visit to mean that the Town Tenants Bill was going to be taken up by the Government. This view was taken not only in the Unionist Press, but the Freeman's Journal stated that the part taken by Sir Antony MacDonnell in the Loughrea incident pledged him to make representations to the Govern-
  784
  ment as to the necessity of passing this session a moderate and sufficient Town Tenants Bill; and that Sir Antony's representations could not, without personal slight, be refused. Then there was a Town Tenants League meeting in Dublin, presided over by Mr. Field, M.P., and at that meeting the Secretary of the League reiterated exactly what the Freeman's Journal had said. The matter with regard to Sir Antony MacDonnell is between Sir Antony and myself. I repeat that I am very sorry that any words that fell from me should have hurt Sir Antony's feelings, and when I see him in Dublin, as no doubt I shortly will, I shall have pleasure in telling him so.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am very sorry to prolong this discussion at a moment when your Lord ships want to get on with the business. But I must say this. I know Sir Antony MacDonnell very well. I have known him for many years. I was associated with him in India and know him to be a man of the highest possible honour, and I am quite sure the noble Earl opposite fully accepts Sir Antony MacDonnell's statement.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am very glad to hear that the noble Earl accepts that statement. It really does not matter what was said in this newspaper or in that. The question is whether Sir Antony MacDonnell's statement is to be received or not. The noble Earl frankly and honourably accepts Sir Antony's statement; and there is nothing more to be said.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think we are indebted to my noble friend behind me (the Earl of Mayo) for having elicited from the noble Lord who spoke just now a categorical contradiction of a mischievous rumour which has been widely circulated with regard to an alleged transaction between the Under-Secretary and persons involved in the regrettable occurrences at Loughrea. I venture to express agreement with what was said

  785
  by my noble friend just now when he suggested to your Lordships that if any misconception arose on this point it was very largely due to the sudden volte face of His Majesty's Government upon this most important question of compensation for disturbance. My noble friend quoted from the statements of the Attorney-General for Ireland—
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I took the passage from Hansard.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl quoted a passage showing that as lately as May last His Majesty's Government were apparently wholly opposed to the principle of compensation which we now find in this Bill. The principle of compensation is now accepted by the Government; and in the circumstances it really is not surprising that people with ingenious minds should search for a reason to explain so sudden a change of front. Anyhow, I hope the discussion which has taken place has cleared the air, and I do not desire to prolong it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MAYOmoved an Amendment to Clause 2 (limitation of tenant's right in certain cases), the object of which was to make it clear that the granting of a building lease was regarded in the Bill as a valuable consideration. He said the question whether a building lease was a valuable consideration was a matter of great dispute among lawyers. In the House of Commons the Attorney-General for Ireland had declared that the lease in itself was a valuable consideration. If that was so, the words in his Amendment should be inserted to make that point clear and to prevent litigation. He felt that there was really very little margin left in Ireland for argument by legal gentlemen. Already a great deal of the money of landlords and tenants had gone into the pockets of the lawyers, and unless the Committee agreed to the insertion of the words "including a building lease" in this clause he saw a great prospect of more money going in the same direction. On broad grounds he thought it advisable that his Amendment should be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 23, after the word 'consideration' to insert the words 'including a building lease."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  LORD DENMANdid not think any very great harm would be caused if these words were inserted, but he submitted that they were unnecessary, as the point was already covered by subsection (4) of Clause 3.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that was the subsection the noble Earl was seeking to amend.
  LORD DENMANsaid his point was that building leases were already, by this subsection, excluded from the provisions of the Bill. He understood, moreover, that the words in the subsection met the objection of Sir E. Carson on this point.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought it would be wiser and more prudent to insert the words of the Amendment. He had no doubt that the Government and the Attorney-General for Ireland intended this clause to have the effect of excluding building leases, but it was a great deal better to say so clearly. The insertion of the words could do no possible harm.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): The point is not a very important one, and I am anxious not to waste any time over it. But I should like to put it to the noble and learned Lord whether, if you use the words "a valuable consideration" and then particularly mention a building lease, it would not seem to imply that a building lease is not a contract for valuable consideration.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The word "including" would meet that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If the Amendment is pressed we shall not resist it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DUNBOYNEhad three Amendments on the Paper to Clause 3, the effect of which was to make Clause 3 read—
  "Where a tenant of a holding proposes to make improvements in his holding, he shall

  787
  send to his landlord notice, in the prescribed manner, of his intention to make such improvements, together with a specification and plan of the proposed improvements, and if the landlord or his known agent, does not within three months after the receipt of the notice send notice of objection, in the prescribed manner, to the tenant, the tenant may proceed to make the proposed improvements; but if the landlord or his agent sends such notice, etc."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the word 'and."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  LORD DENMANsaid it might save time if he stated at once that the Government were willing to accept the Amendment just moved and the other two Amendments to this Clause standing in the name of Lord Dunboyne.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'in his absence'; and in line 32, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'or his agent."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEmoved an Amendment to alter the interest on the sum payable for a period of twenty five years from £3 per cent. per annum to £4 per cent. He said it was his intention to have moved this Amendment in the Committee stage, but by some mistake the Amendment was not put on the Paper. The subsection in which his Amendment came was intended to provide that the landlord might, if he chose, make the necessary improvements himself. He thought their Lord ships would all agree that this was a very desirable provision, as it would prevent much friction and litigation on the termination of a lease. It was provided that repayment might be made in two ways. The landlord might either charge the tenant a sum not exceeding £5 per cent. per annum on the money expended, or, if the tenant preferred it, the tenant might agree to pay such annual sum for a period of twenty-five years as would repay the outlay in the said period, with interest at the rate of £3 per cent. per annum. His Amendment was to insert "£4" instead of
  788
  "£3" per cent. His reasons for moving this Amendment were two. In the first place, owing to the legislation of the last thirty years, landlords in Ireland were impoverished and had not the capital to effect the improvements and would necessarily have to borrow; and, in the second place, again owing to the action of legislation, the value of land had depreciated in Ireland and it was extremely difficult for landlords to borrow at all on it. It was quite evident, at any rate, that no landlord would be able to borrow at less than 4 per cent. If the Government could not see their way to accept his Amendment he suggested, as an alternative course, that they should permit the Board of Works to advance money to landlords for this purpose, the landlord in no case charging the tenant more than he paid himself. The Board of Works charged interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the money lent by them to landlords; that was to say, the Government, as represented by the Board of Works, did not think it safe to lend money at less than 3½ per cent.; yet in this Bill they were expecting the landlord to be satisfied with only 3 per cent.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 10, to leave out the word 'three' and to insert the word 'four".—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  LORD DENMANregretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment. The noble Lord had argued as if the landlord would be compelled under the Bill to borrow money. This was only a provisional clause empowering the landlord, if he chose, to execute the improvement himself. There was no obligation on the landlord to borrow money, and therefore he did not see why the rate of interest should be raised in order to enable him to do so. The Government were of opinion that 3 per cent was a reasonable rate of interest, and that 4 per cent. would in the circumstances be exorbitant. The landlord had perfect security for the repayment of the money he expended since he had a reversion on the property and would be repaid the capital sum in twenty-five years.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEadmitted that it was only optional as far

  789
  as the landlord was concerned, but said it was eminently desirable that the improvement should be made by the landlord and not by the tenant, in order to avoid the litigation and friction that would otherwise constantly arise. As to 4 per cent. being an exorbitant rate of interest, he repeated that the Board of Works charged 3½ per cent.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. It really is a question of security, and the security for the money is so good that there is no reason whatever for a rate of more than 3 per cent. per annum If the rate of interest were higher on such a gilt-edged security as this I imagine landlords would be tempted to execute improvements of all kinds in anticipation of obtaining this remarkably good investment for their money.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENagreed with the noble Earl the Lord President that 3 per cent. was a sufficiently high rate of interest. It had occurred to him that the tenant would be in considerable doubt whether to consent to be charged 5 per cent. on the outlay incurred, or 3 per cent. and a sufficient sum to liquidate the cost of the improvement in twenty-five years. He thought it would be simpler if a specified sum were mentioned showing how much more it would cost to liquidate the outlay in twenty-five years.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not quite sure whether I agree with the noble Earl the Lord President in thinking that an investment of this kind is a gilt-edged one which would afford great attractions to any one desiring to invest his money with absolutely complete security. But be that as it may, I cannot advise my noble friend to press his Amendment. There is some force in what the noble Lord opposite has said as to the matter being an optional one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DENMANmoved an Amendment to Clause 5 (compensation for unreasonable disturbance) to omit the words "for reasons inconsistent with good
  790
  estate management" from the statement of conditions under which disturbance would entitle the tenant to compensation. He said the words in question had been inserted at the instance of Lord Donoughmore, but he did not find that they were necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 9, to leave out from the word 'cause' to the word 'terminates' in line 10."—(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved an Amendment to the clause providing that the tenant should be entitled to compensation for "the loss of goodwill and the expense" which he incurred in connection with removal instead of for "the loss or expense" so incurred. This Amendment was one to which His Majesty's Government attached very great importance. Clause 5 was not at all applicable to the case of shops and business premises unless words were inserted to secure the right of the tenant to compensation for goodwill. The proportion which goodwill bore in the case of an agricultural holding was infinitesimally small compared to goodwill in regard to shop tenancies. Goodwill was a thing which was recognised at law. It was something which could be bought and sold. Compensation for goodwill had been recognised in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. He would take the instance of the Holborn and Strand Improvement. In that case the London County Council had to compensate the landlords for taking their premises and also the tenants of the shops for the loss of their goodwill. The principle, therefore, was recognised in an English Act of Parliament, and it should certainly be included in this clause. As the clause at present stood, it only compensated the tenant for little more than the expense of removal. This did not go at all far enough to meet what they considered just to the tenant. The Government, as he had said, attached vital importance to this Amendment, and he hoped noble Lords opposite would see their way to accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 19, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the words 'of goodwill and

  791
  the,' and to leave out the words 'the tenant."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would not pretend for an instant that he liked the Amendment, but he admitted that there was some force in the noble Lord's argument that the conditions of goodwill in towns were different from those in the case of agricultural holdings. Therefore he did not intend to vote against the Amendment, although he did not like it a bit.
  THE EARL OF MAYOdid not see why the word "expense" should be retained. Surely compensation for loss of goodwill was quite sufficient. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that point.
  LORD DENMANsaid he would consider the point between this and the next stage, but he could hold out no promise in regard to it.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENhoped the Government would retain the word "expense." Compensation limited to five years rent appeared to him to be little enough for the loss a tenant would sustain in the matter of goodwill. The expense a tenant might be put to in removing his goods and chattels, probably from one town to another, would be a serious burden. He hoped the Government would not consent to any limitation of the compensation in the way suggested by Lord Mayo.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to put it to Lord Mayo whether he thinks it is really worth while to leave this matter open, because I can hold out no hope to him that we can reconsider it. There are bound, I think, to be cases where the question of expense must enter. The word "expense" has been in the Bill ever since it has been before your Lordships, and the noble Earl took no exception to it before. I hope he will be content to let the word remain.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I agree.
  LORD CASTLETOWNasked whether, in the event of a shop being sold up by the tenant's creditors, the landlord would be obliged to compensate the outgoing
  792
  tenant for the goodwill, or whether the goodwill would go to the insolvent tenant's creditors.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid that, so far as that is a purely legal question, I am not competent to answer it. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will reply. But I certainly have no intention of plunging into these deep waters.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Loreburn): I have not closely studied the Bill with a view to this point. But if any person is entitled to compensation of any sort he would have to account for that to his creditors in the event of bankruptcy. It would be part of his estate divisible among the creditors.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved to leave out the word "one" and to insert the word "five" in the proviso which read—
  "Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed one years rent of the holding."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 22, to leave out the word 'one' and to insert the word 'five."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the Government had previously expressed their willingness to agree to three years, and, though his Irish nature would prompt him to offer two years in order to try and strike a bargain, he would accept three years in the Government were still willing to agree to that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: As the noble Earl puts it in that way we will also accept three years.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved an Amendment to extend the operation of the clause to premises occupied "to a substantial extent for business purposes.' This was, he said, a matter on which they

  793
  hoped to come to some agreement with noble Lords opposite. He understood that Lord Ashbourne desired to insert the words "trade or" before the words "business purposes." If that would make the Amendment acceptable to noble Lords opposite he would be glad to have those words inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 31, to leave out the word 'partly' and to insert the words 'to a substantial extent."—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think it would read better with the words "trade or" inserted.
  LORD DENMAN: Then I will add them.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would rather have the word "business" out. Business covered an immense number of cases which trade would not cover. Judging from the Bill, the intention of the Government was to protect shopkeepers; but the word "business" would, he was afraid, include stockbrokers, solicitors, land agents, commission agents, and many other people not intended to be covered by the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl is not correct in saying that the Bill is intended to apply to shopkeepers only. Anyone who has lived in Ireland, as I have, must have been struck by the enormous number of small professional persons in that country. I confess I do not quite see why a solicitor or a small country doctor should not come under the purview of this Bill just as much as a shopkeeper. The arguments which apply to one seem to me to apply equally to the others, and I am afraid for that reason we should have to oppose the omission of the word "business."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think this illustrates the difficulty, when you are departing, as you are in this Bill, from sound principle, of drawing a scientific frontier with the object of restricting those departures. I do not see how such a frontier as my noble friend Lord Donoughmore desires can be drawn,
  794
  and I therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that these small business and professional people could not equitably be excluded from the compensation accorded to their neighbours.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid he would have thought that solicitors would make sufficient from the troubles that would arise under the Bill without coming within the compensation provision.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to know how it is proposed that the words should read. I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has amended his Amendment by adding the words "trade or," and that it is now porposed that the sub-section should read—
  "This section shall apply only to houses shops and other buildings occupied wholly or to a substantial extent for trade or business purposes."
  LORD DENMAN: That is so.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid the Amendment which stood in his name proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause tenancies of three different kinds. First, he proposed to exempt tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act. He did so because these tenancies would be entered into by people with their eyes open, and with a full knowledge of their position. Secondly, he proposed to exempt leases made after the passing of the Act for terms of thirty-one years, or for a life or lives. Thirty-one years was a long period, and, as was pointed out by the Duke of Northumberland in the discussion on the Land Tenure Bill, a man could not complain of having to leave his house at the expiration of a term to which he had himself agreed. The third kind of tenancy he referred to were tenancies from year to year existing at the passing of the Act where the rent of the holding was at or over £30 per annum. He thought the same argument applied to those tenancies. The persons concerned were very well able to make their own bargains. He would like to refer to a remark made by the Lord President of the Council when the Bill was in Committee. The noble

  795
  Earl seemed to think that Irish tenants as a rule were an ingenuous and confiding set of persons utterly at the mercy of the wily and unscrupulous landlord, if such there were. The noble Earl seemed to have taken his idea of an Irishman from the Irishman usually depicted on the stage, who capers about in the highest possible spirits, with a complete disregard for such considerations as money, or the future, or anything else except the enjoyment of the moment; but anyone who had had experience of that class in Ireland would know that they were for the most part remarkably astute and had a very keen eye for the main chance. Whatever qualities they might be deficient in which might militate against their success in life it was certainly not want of intelligence or concern for what they conceived to be their own interests. He hoped the provision in the clause would be limited in the way he proposed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 31, after the word 'purposes' to insert the words, 'and which are held (a) under tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act, or (b) under leases made after the passing of this Act, for terms of less than thirty-one years, or for a life or lives, or (c) under tenancies from year to year existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £30 per annum."(Lord Clonbrock.)
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government were quite unable to entertain the Amendment, which in their opinion was most unreasonable. Its effect would be to exclude those cases which it was hoped would come within the opera-of the clause. Under the Act of 1870 existing tenancies from year to year came within the operation of the Act if the rent was not more than £100. The noble Lord proposed to substitute £30, which was an important difference. The Government attached very great importance to this matter, and if their Lordships pressed the Amendment the consequences might be very far-reaching. He desired, however, if possible, to meet the noble Lord, and as a solution of the difficulty he suggested that the Amendment should stand down to the letter (c), and that after the word "under," which followed, the words "tenancies from year to year "should be struck out and
  796
  the words "contracts of tenancy" substituted; and that the remainder of the Amendment should stand with this exception, that the words "one hundred pounds "be substituted for thirty pounds in the last line of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked Lord Clonbrock to inform the House to what the Bill would apply if his Amendment were carried. As he understood it, it would not apply to the past, to the present, or to the future. What effect, therefore, would the Bill have if the Amendment were adopted?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid there was no doubt the Amendment was open to the criticism that it would substantially affect the width of the application of the clause, and he quite understood the ground of objection taken by the Government. Perhaps Lord Clonbrock would consider whether he could recast the wording and put it in a shape less objectionable to the Government, and whether thirty-one year leases could not be placed in a category that could be dealt with separately. The simplicity of the suggestion to substitute £100 for £30 was interesting to any one acquainted with the extremely small rents that obtained in country towns in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid we shall not be able to go beyond the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Denman. In the interest of the saving of time, if we could come to terms on these words now it would be a very great advantage. Your Lordships will see that to postpone any point of substance to the Third Reading at the stage of the session at which we have arrived is a difficult matter.
  *THE EARL OF PEMBROKEasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to state exactly what the Government's proposal was.
  LORD DENMANreplied that the Government accepted Lord Clonbrock's Amendment down to the words "life or lives." After that it would read—
  "or (c) under contracts of tenancy existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £100 per annum."
  LORD ASHBOURNEwas still unable to understand how the Amendment in this form could effect the object desired.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We accept (a) and (b) of Lord Clonbrock's Amendment, not because we like them very much but because we are obliged to; but that is on the understanding that (c) as amended in the terms read out by my noble friend also forms part of the clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked Lord Denman to kindly read the clause as it would then stand.
  LORD DENMAN: The clause as it is proposed to be amended, if Lord Clonbrock accepts our alterations at the end of the Amendment, would read—
  "This section shall apply only to houses, shops, and other buildings occupied wholly or to a substantial extent for trade or business purposes, and which are held (a) under tenancies from year to year created after the passing of this Act, or (b) under leases made after the passing of this Act for terms of less than thirty-one years, or for a life or lives, or (c) under contracts of tenancy existing at the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under £100 per annum.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid that if the clause read in that way he feared there must be a mistake in the drafting of his Amendment, because otherwise the tenancies which he proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause would be included.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsuggested that the difficulty might be got over by inserting the word "not" before the word "held" at the beginning of Lord Clonbrock's Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, to carry out Lord Clonbrock's intention something of that kind is required.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really do not know how it is proposed that this Amendment should be dealt with; but it is not my business.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Would not the noble Lord's point be met by inserting the words "other than those" which are held, etc.?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid his advice to Lord Clonbrock would be to take the words as suggested by the Government and then consider them before Third Reading. So far as he could tell, the clause did not even now read correctly, but when they saw it as amended in the print of the Bill they could consider what further alteration was necessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthen put the Amendment as read by Lord Denman, with the addition, at the beginning of the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper, of the words "other than those "held (a), etc.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BARRYMOREmoved to add to Clause 9 a new sub-section providing that "notwithstanding anything in this section, a tenant of a holding whose rent is not less than £30 per annum, shall not be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any provision of the Bill in cases where the tenant has contracted in writing with his landlord that he will not make any such claim." The Government, he thought, could not wish to destroy the opportunity of allowing tenants to contract out of the Act if they wished, and especially those who were capable of understanding it. A rent of £30 in Ireland represented a very substantial man who was quite capable of making any kind of contract.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 18, after the word, 'compulsion' to insert the following new subsection: (2) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a tenant of a holding whose rent is not less than thirty pounds per annum, shall not be entitled to make any claim for compensation under any provision of this Act in cases where the tenant has contracted in writing with his landlord that he will not make any such claim."—(Lord Barrymore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that he did not like the Amendment, because it weakened the clause. The point of doubt and difficulty was the exact figure of rent at which it was reasonable to suppose that the tenant was not likely to yield to any undue pressure exercised by the landlord. He preferred the existing figure of the Act of 1881—namely, £150 a year. He

  799
  should like, if noble Lords opposite could see their way, to increase the figure above that suggested in the Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought that if any limitation were put in at all it should be a real one. He did not contend that £30 was absolutely the correct figure, but £150 would be a fanciful limitation.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is important in considering this matter to have regard to the wording of the clause as it stands. I will read it—
  "Any contract (other than a contract either to make or not to make an improvement) made after the passing of this Act, by virtue of which a tenant would be, directly or indirectly, deprived of his right to obtain compensation under this Act, shall be void unless the court adjudicating upon a claim for compensation by such tenant shall, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, be of opinion that such contract was reasonable and that it was entered into by the parties without any direct or indirect compulsion."
  If the latter part of the clause was not there I think there would be far more to be said for the noble Lord's suggestion than there is. There is nothing to prevent people making contracts to stand out of this compensation question, and I have no doubt a considerable number will. In fact I should think that in the cases of large businesses it would probably be almost the invariable rule. In a case of that kind, supposing a man were to go back on his contract and attempt all the same to get compensation, the court would point out that he obviously had not been a subject of compulsion and consequently he must hold by his contract. I should have thought that was a sufficient general safeguard to everybody, but if the noble Lord thinks it is important to leave out people on a larger scale I shall be prepared to offer the figure of £100 as in the other case. I am afraid I could not go beyond that, for the reason that the clause as it stands seems to me to offer a perfectly reasonable protection to everybody who wants to stand out of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid this was not a very big point. His own view was that they were sufficiently safeguarded under the clause as it stood, and he for one would be inclined to appeal
  800
  to Lord Barrymore not press the Amendment.
  LORD DUNBOYNEintimated his intention of moving an Amendment on Third Reading putting the onus of proof on a tenant who had entered into a contract to show that it was unreasonable or obtained by duress instead of putting the onus on the landlord to prove the contrary.
  LORD BARRYMOREsaid that as his noble friends around him seemed to think there was no very great value in the Amendment he would withdraw it, but he confessed that he abandoned it with regret.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DENMANmoved to omit subsections (3) and (4), which dealt with appeals, and to insert a new clause. He explained that the new clause had been drafted to meet an objection of noble Lords opposite, and he understood they were not unwilling to accept it, possibly in preference to the new sub-section standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Dunboyne.
  Amendment moved—
  "In pages 5 and 6, to leave out sub-sections (3) and (4); and to insert the following new clause: (1) Any person aggrieved by any determination of the county court under this Act may appeal either—(a) to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court as the case may be in accordance with the provisions of the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bills; or (b) to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court. Provided that if in any proceedings appeals are taken both to the Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court and to the Court of Appeal, the appeals shall be heard together by such judge, and a further appeal may be taken from his determination to the Court of Appeal in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court."—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD DUNBOYNEhad the following Amendment on the Paper—
  "In pages 5 and 6, to leave out sub-sections 3 and 4 and insert the following new sub-section: '(3) An appeal from any determination of the county court under this Act shall, at the option of the party appealing, lie either to the Court of Appeal or to the Judge of Assize. In the former case the appeal shall be brought within the time, in the manner, and in accordance with

  801
  the conditions prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court, and in the latter case the enactments in the County Court (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, relating to appeals in the case of ordinary civil bill, shall apply. A proceeding in the nature of a cross appeal brought by any person who is a party to the appeal first instituted, or any second appeal from the determination of the county court in any particular case brought by any person interested therein shall only lie to that tribunal before which the appeal first instituted has been taken while the same is pending and undisposed of, save as aforesaid the determination of the county court shall be final."
  He said he would withdraw this Amendment in favour of the one moved by Lord Denman. But perhaps the noble Lord would explain the meaning of the words "Judge of the High Court." Would that be a rehearing before the Judge in Dublin who would hear witnesses viva voce, or an appeal on the notes of the County Court Judge.
  LORD DENMANsaid the words "Judge of the high Court" had been put in to meet the special case of Dublin and for no other purpose. As to whether evidence would be heard by the Judge, he understood that was the case.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Lord who had just sat down was quite correct. The Judge of Assize had an absolute rehearing and witnesses were called up. "Judge of the High Court" was put in to meet the special case of Dublin, where appeals from the Recorder were heard from time to time at the Four Courts. The Judge in Dublin could only hear the Dublin appeals from the recorder.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DROGHEDAmoved to insert a new sub-section in Clause 11 (proceedings in respect of claims).
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 13, after the word 'upon' to insert the following new sub-section. (2) Section 29 (as far as unrepealed) and sections 30, 31, and 32 of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to proceedings in respect of claims under this Act".—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he was obliged to the noble Earl for having submitted to him privately his reasons for moving the
  802
  Amendment. He understood that the noble Earl desired particularly to raise the case of limited owners and also the case of trustees. He was advised that the case of limited owners was covered by Section 27 of the Act of 1870, and, with regard to the case of trustees, he had in his hand a new clause which was copied out of the English Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 with only one or two differences to make it applicable to Ireland. He hoped this would meet the particular points the noble Earl desired to raise in moving this Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he understood the noble Lord was proceeding in this matter on the advice of the Attorney-General for Ireland, and if his right hon. friend was satisfied with the clause the noble Lord had in his hand he suggested that it would be convenient if it were inserted now. They would take it on trust, and consider before the Third Reading whether or not it required modification.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, after Clause 11, to insert a new clause".—(Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Clause fills a whole page. I will read it if the Committee wish.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
  On Question, new clause agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved to amend Clause 12 (Holdings to which the Act applies) by substituting for "towns" the words "urban districts, towns, or villages." This would make the Act apply to houses, shops, and other buildings situated in urban districts, towns, or villages.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 16, to leave out the word 'towns' and to insert the words 'urban districts, towns, or villages."—(Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF PEMBROKE,while acknowledging that the Government had tried to meet a point he made the other

  803
  day, would much rather the Amendment should stop at urban districts and towns. It would be fairer to landowners to leave out villages altogether. Since he had moved his own Amendment he had received many communications from Ireland showing that everybody was surprised that this Town Tenants Bill should be made to apply to villages. He hoped the Government would consent to strike out the word "villages."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If anybody in this House is satiated with the difference between urban and rural I am that person. It certainly is a difficult matter in these cases to draw a very distinct line, but I am afraid we are not prepared to part with the word "villages." Cases of hard ship may arise under the existing state of things from the fact that a man has not got a choice of sites owing to the whole town or village belonging to one landlord. Those cases are clearly the ones which could in most cases be met by the word "village." The sort of hardship which would arise under the present condition of things would be accentuated by leaving out the word "village." I do not know of any definition of "village," and I am afraid we must trust to the Courts of law to find one in time.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that under this Bill the definition of a town would have to be left to the Courts to decide, and now they would have to decide the further question "when is a village not a village?"
  *THE EARL OF PEMBROKEsaid that in the circumstances he would withdraw his opposition to the insertion of the word "villages."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked permission to move an Amendment which was not on the Paper. In the definition clause (Clause 13) it was provided that—
  " 'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules of the County Court."
  He moved to add the words "made after notice sent to or consultation with the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland." These words were inserted last year in
  804
  the Labourers Act, and he thought it would be wise to include them here.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 33, after the word 'Court' to insert the words 'made after notice sent to or consultation with the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD DENMANsaid it was difficult off-hand to express any opinion on the Amendment, but as it had the great authority of the noble and learned Lord he thought they ought to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DUNBOYNE,on behalf of Lord Oranmore and Browne, proposed that the Act should come into operation on 1st July, 1907, instead of January 1st next. There would not be sufficient notice to those concerned if the Act had to be put in working in a fortnight.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 6, to leave out the word 'January' and to insert the word 'July."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  LORD DENMANregretted to be obliged to resist this Amendment to postpone the operation of the measure. When the Bill was introduced it was to be put in operation immediately on its passing, and the insertion of 1st January, 1907, had been a concession made, to the Ulster Members. Postponing the operation of the Act for six months would mean that luring all that time no improvements whatever would be made in Ireland, It would be against human nature to expect a tenant to do repairs at his own cost when by waiting until the Act came into force he could make the landlord pay. The Government must insist upon the late of 1st January remaining in the Bill. He must remind noble Lords that they had already substantially altered the Bill. They had knocked out the provision making the Act retrospective, they had whittled down its operation by limiting its scope in rural districts to villages, and in various other ways, and he must warn them that any further alteration might result in the Bill being dropped altogether. He did not think it would drive noble Lords opposite to

  805
  despair if the Bill was dropped, but he hoped that as the Bill was asked for by the majority of the Irish people their Lordships would not, persist in an Amendment which might result in the Bill being dropped altogether.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the noble Lord had used language of a minatory character which was quite uncalled for by the course of the debate. He thought nothing could have been more reasonable than the manner in which noble Lords on his side of the House had conducted the discussions on this measure.
  As to the question of the date he did not see how it was physically possible for the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to summon together his council of County Court Judges in the Christmas holidays in order to pass the rules necessary under the Bill. As a matter of administration it was nearly impossible to get the rules passed, printed, and gazetted before 1st January. There was no desire unduly to press the Government on the matter, and perhaps the point would be considered before the next stage.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I need hardly say that we have no complaint to make of the way noble Lords opposite have conducted the discussions on this Bill; but noble Lords have made one or two very substantial changes in the Bill, particularly the one which has destroyed its retrospective character. As regards this particular point it is exceedingly difficult for us to give way. A measure of this character as a rule comes into operation on its passing, and for this very obvious reason—if it did not come into operation quickly certain unscrupulous persons could make arrangements to defeat its provisions. As this Bill was originally introduced it was provided that it should come into operation on its passing, and it was only during the course of this autumn session, in deference to desires expressed by the Opposition in the House of Commons, that the date was fixed for the 1st of January. Therefore it is not like the case of the Education Bill, where the original date was put of to July in consequence of the Bill going on into the autumn. January was inserted in this Bill to meet the wishes
  806
  of the Opposition during the course of this autumn session, to the close of which I am glad to hope we are now drawing. In these circumstances, and on the ground that we do not think it right to leave this matter open, we must adhere to the date in the Bill.
  LORD DUNBOYNEsaid time must elapse before the rules and forms could be prepared and consequently nothing would be lost if the date was postponed.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid they knew perfectly well that the Bill could not come into operation on the 1st of January, even if the Government spoilt the Christmas holidays of the Lord Chancellor and the County Court Judges. But he did not think the point one worth dividing upon.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREappealed to the Lord President to expedite as much as possible the preparation of the necessary forms.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 243.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved to insert in Clause 52 a new subsection which, he said, dealt with a highly technical subject. It had been a matter of considerable negotiation between those for whom he was acting and the Board of Trade as well as the Lord Chancellor. Under Section 21 (1) of the Act of 1894, on a ship being transferred to a foreigner intimation of the transfer was made to the registrar, who made an entry of the fact in his register. The practice was thereupon to close the register irrespective of any existing unsatisfied mortgages. Under this section the sale might have taken place either abroad or in this country. Section 44, the section regulating these transfers, provided a statutory method

  807
  for sale taking place to a foreigner in a foreign country. This was done by means of a certificate of sale, which consisted of a power of attorney in favour of the foreign agent and included a description of the ship as appearing on the register and narrated any mortgages appearing on the register. The foreign purchaser under the certificate of sale had an opportunity of learning for himself if there were any unpaid mortgages, and might require them to be paid off before he purchased the vessel. Subsection (10) of Section 44 provided that the documents of sale were to be transmitted to the registrar, who—
  "Shall thereupon make a memorandum of the sale in his register book, and the registry of the ship in that book shall be considered as closed, except so far as relates to any unsatisfied mortgages or existing certificates of mortgage entered therein."
  The presumption therefore was that the register remained open with respect to any unpaid mortgages. In practice the register was, as a matter of fact, closed, and the opinion of shipping lawyers was that the exception just quoted provided no remedy whatever. Its terms were vague, and it was only by inference that the Courts could be considered as having the power to enforce unpaid mortgages. He was informed that by far the greatest number of transfers to foreigners did not take place under the provisions of Section 44, but by simple note or bill of sale, and in the Bill now before their Lordships the exception in sub-section (10) had been added to Section 21. The provision was inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons, but for the reasons he had already stated he doubted whether it was very much use. He assured their Lordships that a very large amount of capital was invested in British shipping, and apparently mortgagees, if the reading of the law was right as it now stood, were at the mercy of owners who, by selling a ship to a foreigner, could have the register closed and destroy the security of the mortgage. The only remedy the mortgagee had nagaist the ship was to apply to the Courts to enforce the mortgage, on the ground that the register was still open so far as related to the mortgage. It was, however, doubtful if the Courts would consider that they had the power to enforce the
  808
  mortgage. The confidence of those who dealt in this class of business had been much shaken, and it was of importance that that confidence should be restored. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper would, it was believed, go far towards effecting that purpose. He understood that after considerable negotiations the legal advisers of the Board of Trade and the Lord Chancellor, and, he supposed, the Foreign Office, were satisfied that this was a fair provision. At any rate the point of it was that if a ship which had an unsatisfied mortgage upon it afterwards came within the jurisdiction of a British Court that Court could order possession to be taken and investigate the whole procedure. He did not think any question of an international character ought to arise. But there was one point on which those whom he represented would like to be satisfied, and that was whether the word "British" Court intended to limit the mortgagees' right against a ship to the Courts of Great Britain, or whether it was considered that the word included the Courts of British possessions. He would imagine himself that there could be no doubt that in this connection the term British would apply to, and include, all Colonial Courts. If he received that assurance he would be content to move the Amendment as it stood, but, without that assurance, he would like to move the deletion of the word "British."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 52, page 30. line 5, after the word 'therein' to insert as a new subsection: '(2) It is hereby declared that where the registry of a ship is considered as closed under subsection (1) of section twenty-one of the principal Act as amended by this section or under sub-section (10) of section forty-four of that Act, on account of a transfer to persons not qualified to be owners of British ships, any unsatisfied registered mortgage (including mortgages made under a certificate of mortgage) may, if the ship comes within the jurisdiction of any British Court which has jurisdiction to enforce the mortgage, or would have had such jurisdiction if the transfer had not been made, be enforced by that Court notwithstanding the transfer, without prejudice, in cases where the ship has been sold under a judgment of a Court, to the effect of that judgment."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in announcing that the Government would

  809
  accept the new sub-section, said the object of shipowners and others who advanced money on British ships was that their security might not be wholly frustrated by the sale being registered abroad and the transfer completed without any regard to the mortgage. We could not say we would not recognise a sale which might be perfectly valid according to the law of the country in which it took place. The only alternative seemed to be that now proposed, that when the ship came within the jurisdiction of any British Court that Court should have the right to enforce the mortgage. He had no doubt at all that the term "British Court" included any British Court whether in Australia or in any other colony. He thought Lord Balfour's Amendment was a very proper one, in order to give the security so much needed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked how the words "British Court" would affect a Court in a British Pretectorate.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid it was impossible to say. What was a Pretectorate to-day might not be a Protectorate to-morrow. But, after all, the number of ships concerned that would enter the ports of a British Protectorate would be very few.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I believe it will be in accordance with the wish of the House, and certainly it will be a very great advantage in regard to getting through the business of the remainder of the session, if we can send this Bill down to the House of Commons at once. Therefore, if there is no objection, I shall move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that so far as the Opposition were concerned, they desired to help the noble Marquess in this matter, especially on account of the extremely courteous and kind way in which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Granard) had conducted the proceedings.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am very pleased to see recognised what I must be permitted to say was the able way in which my noble friend conducted this Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGORsaid that when he moved an Amendment at a previous stage Lord Tweedmouth undertook that the provision which he desired inserted, to the effect that every ship should carry some one on board trained in first-aid, would be dealt with by the Government. It would be a matter of great satisfaction to many interested in this point if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill could state what the Government proposed to do in regard to this matter.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid the matter had been discussed very carefully at the Board of Trade, and it had been decided that after the beginning of next year, when the Bill came into force, there should be added to the syllabus for the examination of second mates a requirement that they should have some knowledge of first-aid. Those instructions would be issued almost immediately.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The effect of that will be that on all large ships there will be somebody possessing first-aid knowledge?
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Every one going up for a second mate's certificate will have to know something upon this subject.
  On Question (Standing Order XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved an Amendment to that sub-section of Clause 4 which provided that nothing

  811
  in the clause should affect the liability of the trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided for by the Trade Union Act, 1871, Section 9, "except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute." He proposed to strike out the words quoted, in order to insert, "Provided that the said trustees shall not be made liable in any action for any tortious act committed for or on behalf of the union where such tortious act does not touch or concern the property, right, or claim to property of the trade union." He said that he was not now contesting the principle of Clause 4 or the method by which the clause gave effect to the principles involved. He only raised the question whether the clause did not go beyond the avowed intentions of the Bill's promoters. The effect of Section 9 of the Act of 1871 was simply to place the trustees of trade-union funds in exactly the same position as other owners of property. They were to have the same rights and the same liabilities. The object of the sub-section which he proposed to amend was to protect the trade union funds from being taken for debt or damages. Supposing, in the course of a trade dispute, some premises occupied by a union were to be wrecked or damaged. The union were not the owners of the premises, and he suggested that by the words in the Bill the landlord would be deprived of any remedy he might have for securing the safety of his property. Again, supposing the trustees of a trade-union building, perhaps the property of the union, were to allow the premises to be used for an improper purpose, to become a nuisance to the neighbourhood. He suggested that by the words of the clause the neighbours could take no action and would possess no remedy. The object of the Amendment was to provide a remedy for these and similar cases.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 2, line 13, to leave out from the word 'nine' to the end of the subsection and to insert the words "Provided that the said trustees shall not be made liable in any action for any tortious act committed for or on behalf of the union where such tortious act does not touch or concern the pro-
  812
  perty, right, or claim to property of the trade union."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that the point raised was an important one, and it had been stated by the noble Lord with admirable clearness. It was not an Amendment intended to be hostile to the principles of the Bill; as he understood it, the Amendment simply intended to make clear an extremely difficult and intricate point of law. He thought that the language of the clause was less scientific than he would like to see, and, speaking for himself, he believed that the language of the noble Lord's Amendment was preferable to the language of the Bill. He was disposed to recommend it, therefore, to the attention of the Government in order that it might be fully considered by the numerous experts in the other House, and to see whether or not his view was the right one. Of course, he could not pledge the Government ultimately to accept the noble Lord's words, but he promised to bring the Amendment before his colleagues with a view to its incorporation in the Bill.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought the course indicated by the noble and learned Lord was a very convenient one for their Lordships to adopt.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend the definition of the expression "trade dispute" so as to make it read "the expression "trade dispute" means any dispute between employers and workmen, and servants or persons employed in any trade or industry whether in such employers' employment or not, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of labour of any person." He said that his views upon this subject were expressed when the Bill was in Committee, and he had in no way abated the strength of those views. He believed, however, that the words which he now moved would be acceptable to His Majesty's Government; he sincerely hoped that they would meet the point which he and his noble friends had in mind, and added that if this Amendment was agreed

  813
  to he would move to strike out Clause 6, which provided that the Bill should not apply with regard to disputes connected with land, and was inserted in Committee on his own Motion.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 5, page 2, line 25, after the word 'dispute,' to insert the words 'between employers and workmen, and servants or persona employed in any trade or industry whether in such employers' employment or not."(The, Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORheld strongly himself that Clause 6 went very much further than the Amendment now proposed; but with regard to that Amendment, he desired to adopt the same attitude as he adopted on the last Amendment. He did not see that it altered in any prejudicial sense the meaning of the clause, and he was willing to recommend it also to the consideration of the Government in the other House.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "To omit Clause 6."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons, to be printed as amended.

  RECORDERS, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES, AND CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a small Bill of modest dimensions, to which I trusty our Lord ships will see no objection. Its object is to make provision as to the appointment of deputies for recorders, stipendiary magistrates and clerks of the peace, and for the temporary performance of the duties of those officers in case of vacancies.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEI think this Bill is to meet an obvious public convenience, and I am sure your Lordships will readily pass it. But I question whether it is wise to provide that the power of a person to act temporarily under this provision should extend over so long a period as six months from the occurrence of the vacancy. That, however, is a matter which I leave for the consideration of my noble and learned friend.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  LICENSING (REMOVAL OF DOUBTS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill that had a remarkable and extremely recent origin. It had its origin in a decision on which I will say nothing. The decision of the Court of King's Bench was that where the conpensation authority in a county borough, which under the Licensing Act consists of the whole body of justices, does not delegate its powers to a committee, then it is necessary that at least a majority of the justices acting for the borough must attend and take part in the proceedings in order to render them valid. I am afraid the consequences of this decision may be far-reaching, because there are other statutes and provisions containing like words and the effect would be to set aside a great number of transactions as being invalid for this technical reason. The legitimate and natural course would be to go to the Court of Appeal on a decision of this kind, but, unfortunately, that takes time and the whole licensing business would be in chaos in the meantime. It has, therefore, been thought preferable for His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to meet this point.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I think your Lordships will be most anxious speedily to

  815
  pass this Bill, which remedies what is an obvious inconvenience. I think, however, it might be argued that by the wording of the Bill the justices should be "assembled for the purpose" in the notice. I think it would be better to strike out the words "assembled for the purpose," and insert the words "duly assembled" though I daresay there would be a further point on the word "duly."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I need not say that any suggestion from the noble Lord to secure certainty in this enactment will be gladly accepted.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The noble and learned Lord opposite expressed a desire that the Bill should pass speedily. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, and, if he does not object, we will pass it at once.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I should be very sorry to offer the slightest objection to that course.
  Committee negatived; then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope that the arrangement by which your Lordships are willing to take the Second Reading of this Bill this afternoon will end by being convenient to noble Lords opposite. As I understand there is no noble Lord who wishes to oppose the the Second Reading. It is, however, not unlikely that there may be noble Lords opposite who will wish to put down Amendments on various clauses, and the idea therefore is that if we get the Second Reading to-day noble Lords will have longer time in which to consider their Amendments. We will put the Committee stage down for a day convenient to noble Lords opposite, but not before Tuesday or Wednesday next.
  816
  Although this is one of the most important Bills which His Majesty's Government have brought before your Lordships this session I do not propose to say very much upon the question this afternoon. It is so very largely a matter of detail that it is more easily considered in Committee. I think, however, it is right that I should call your Lordships' attention to a few points in which the Bill makes a real change in the law. First, with regard to the definition of the word "workmen." The idea of His Majesty's Government is that there should be a very large extension of the principle of compensation to workmen. There were various proposals which might have been adopted. They might have gone on the present system of only including certain specified classes of workmen, but, on the whole, it appeared better to His Majesty's Government to make the Bill apply to all workmen, with certain exceptions which your Lordships will find set out on page 14 of the Bill. There is, for instance, the exclusion of men employed in casual labour, the idea being that a man who is employed just for the moment should not receive compensation. This does not apply to casual labour at the docks; but men engaged, for instance, to sweep snow off a door-step would not receive compensation. The police are specially excluded because they are provided for otherwise. Then there is also the exclusion of out-workers working on premises not under the control and management of the employer. The present Act only deals with certain dangerous industries and with some 7,500,000 workmen. This Bill, taking the last census as a basis, will include 738,000 clerks, 850,000 shop assistants, 2,000,000 domestic servants, 141,000 seamen, and 1,300,000 workshop employees. Your Lordships will therefore see that the Bill Largely extends the application of the principle of compensation. At present the length of time for which compensation is not paid is fourteen days, but it is proposed under this Bill to reduce the period to seven days. If an injury lasts more than fourteen days, however, compensation will be paid from the date of the accident. This is the result of an arrangement arrived it in another place, and I think

  817
  it meets with general approval. His Majesty's Government have been specially fortunate in being able to have the practical advice of a large number of Members of Parliament who are particularly well acquainted with the circumstances of the workmen who will be included under this Bill. Seamen are not brought in while they are on board ship, but it was felt that there was a moment during which they would not get any compensation. The advantages of the Merchant Shipping Act leave them when they go on shore. From the moment that the Merchant Shipping Act drops them this Bill takes them up. The inclusion of industrial diseases in the Bill is another important matter. Any workman or workwoman who contracts industrial disease as the result of the conditions of his or her employment is just as much deserving of compensation as the man or woman who meets with an accident. Take, for instance, the case of lead poisoning, and so on. It is a novel and very difficult principle which has involved very great discussion amongst those interested in this question, but I am able to state that the provisions in the Bill are generally acceptable to all the parties concerned. The clause which deals with this question is very complicated. It is extremely difficult to apportion exactly the compensation which will be paid by an employer supposing the workman has not been with him very long, but I believe when your Lordships have had time to consider the terms in which that clause is drawn, you will see that it has been designed with fairness and in a way which ought to be generally satisfactory both to employers and employed. The third schedule is somewhat disappointing as there are only six industrial diseases included. The reason is that a Committee has been sitting for some time dealing with certain other diseases, and it was not thought desirable to put any of those in the schedule till the Home Office had had time to go thoroughly into the question. Before July next it is hoped that the Home Office will be able to take advantage of the clause in the Bill by which that office has power to add to the schedule those industrial diseases which it may seem desirable to add. I have now explained the really
  818
  important points in the Bill, and, while I am quite sure that your Lordships all agree with the principle of the Bill, I venture to hope that when we come to consider it in Committee it will not be found to need any very serious amendment.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am not rising to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill nor to prolong the discussion upon it at this stage. The noble Earl said he wished to call our attention to several questions of principle raised in the Bill. He did call our attention to some of them, but omitted to mention a principle certainly more important than any of those he referred to. I allude to the fact that by this Bill for the first time, so far as I know, illegitimacy is recognised. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether there is any precedent in British legislation for recognising illegitimacy. It is now admitted for the first time that illegitimates are to claim compensation on the same footing as legitimates. I need not say that this is a most important change in the law, and one which will have consequences far beyond anything contained in this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By the law of Scotland illegitimacy may be removed at any time by the marriage of the parents. Under the law of England I am not aware that any rights of property or restitution of status has been conferred upon illegitimate children; but the question is a very large one to express an opinion upon as it relates to the whole range of English law. May I say, however, that illegitimacy is not the fault of the child, who suffers when need for compensation arises. I think your Lordships would not be anxious to press the difference between legitimacy and illegitimacy in cases of that kind.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, having had charge of an amending Bill which passed through your Lordships' House two years ago, I should like to say a few words before this Bill is read a second time. It is

  819
  perfectly clear that this Bill is an enormous extension of the original Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not in the least wish to complain of that, because I think everyone who was connected with the original Act recognised that if you once brought in a Bill for the purpose of giving compensation to workmen in dangerous trades there was no principle which would prevent its being extended to other trades not so dangerous and to the smaller employers. As this Bill has been founded upon the Report of the Committee I must point out that the Bill I introduced adhered more closely to the Committee's recommendations than the present Bill. In many instances the Government have gone beyond and against the Report. In the first place, the Bill extends to seamen, and although no one will grudge seamen having the same opportunities for compensation as other classes of workmen, yet it was strongly felt by the Committee that the case of seamen ought not to be dealt with in the same Bill as compensation for people employed on land. There are other very important extensions. The noble Earl referred to industrial diseases. Compensation for industrial diseases is a new principle altogether. It is not a compensation for accidents, but a compensation for diseases in the course of employment; and I doubt whether the terms of the Bill will safeguard the employer in cases where a workman has disobeyed the regulations for the preservation of health. Apart from that it seems to me very doubtful whether, if a workman suffered from some of the common diseases, not industrial diseases, such as consumption, arising from living in unhealthy rooms, he might not in the future be able to get compensation. There is one other very serious extension in the Bill—the extension to small employers. Although this is a perfectly just corollary of the former Bill, I am afraid, as it is not accompanied by any system of insurance, that it will give rise to great difficulties. The object in a Bill of this sort should be that the workman should be certain to get compensation if he is entitled to it. There will be a very large number of small employers who will not insure, and will be unable to pay compensation
  820
  for death or total disablement In foreign countries it has been recognised that it is absolutely unfair to give compensation to the workmen of every employer unless some State insurance or some recognised insurance system is adopted. I am afraid that in regard to these cases there is fear that workmen and small employers will suffer. I congratulate the noble Earl on the fact that he has to deal with a Bill which is in a much more reasonable state than the Bill with which I had to deal two years ago. In the first place we have got rid of the undertaker, a name not connected with very pleasant associations at any time. So far as I was concerned I found the greatest difficulty sometimes in making the effect of the Bill clear. A few points of detail in this Bill will require consideration in Committee. I have always been in favour of compensating workmen, and the experience of employers under the last Act proved that it could be done at much less cost than many people imagined. I recognise that with the large representation of labour in the other House it was perfectly natural that the law should be extended to a considerable extent in the way that it has been in the Bill now before your Lordships.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I remember aright the noble Marquess proposed the other evening, and the House accepted, an arrangement by which our proceedings were to terminate at three o'clock this afternoon. That hour is now passed, and it is therefore obvious that we cannot continue a Second Reading debate on this important Bill. The Bill touches a number of points which no doubt can be most conveniently dealt with in Committee. At the same time it does involve some very important questions of principle, and therefore I hope it may be understood that any noble Lords who desire to address your Lordships upon these questions of principle will have full opportunity of doing so on the Motion to go into Committee. I suggest that the Second Reading of the Bill should be agreed to to-day in order to give noble Lords an opportunity of putting their Amendments on the Paper.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: That is exactly what I intended. If any noble Lord now abstains from making a Second Reading speech he will have full opportunity of doing so on going into Committee.
  On Question, Motion agreed to Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this Bill is similar to the Bill which was introduced in the last Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will not object to its now being read a Second Time.
  Moved, "That this Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Three o clock to Monday next, a quarter past Four o clock.