Sitting of 19 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting, owing to indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. Emmott, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Ardrossan, Saltcoats, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dunbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SECOND BALLOT).
Petition from Govan, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from Shifnal, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  REMUNERATION OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES.
  Address for "Return showing, in regard to the Remuneration received by
  1486
  the Consulting Engineers to the Crown Colonies and Protectorates for their services in connection with the construction of railways which have been undertaken upon their recommendation, (1) what has been the amount of their Remuneration from this source during the last ten years; (2) how it is assessed; and (3) from what fund or funds it has been paid."—(Mr. Walker.)

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Return ordered, "as to the proceedings of Distress Committees under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, in England and Wales, up to the 31st day of March, 1906."—(Mr. John Burns.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Fair Rent Decision—Cost of Copies of Orders.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that agreements fixing a fair rent in the County Courts in Ireland twenty years ago are sent to the Public Record Office, Four Courts, Dublin, and that to procure a copy of same costs 3s. 6d., whilst in the ordinary way copies of these documents are supplied for 1s.; does the same charge apply in the case of County Court; fair-rent orders; and, in view of the fact that this charge often presses hardly on poor tenants, will he secure that in future a uniform charge of 1s. be made for copies of orders or agreements, no matter when filed.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I am informed by the Land Commission that they understand that records of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace for each county, when more than twenty years old, are sent to the Public Records Office of Ireland year by year under the warrant of the Master of the Rolls, and that the fees for certified copies of such documents have been fixed, pursuant to statute, at 6d. per folio of seventy-two words. These fees could only be altered by the Master of the Rolls with Treasury sanction. Copies of agreements fixing fair rents filed in the County Courts are not very numerous. As a rule they contain four

  1487
  folios, in which case the charge would be 2s. each. When such fair-rent agreements are filed in the Land Commission, copies under the seal of the Commission can be obtained for 1s. each. Similarly, while the original agreements remain with the Clerks of the Crown and Peace, they are bound by the rules of the Land Commission to furnish copies at 1s. each, and it is their duty to send copies for recording by the Land Commission. The hon. Member does not indicate for what purpose it is necessary that tenants requiring fair-rent agreements which are more than twenty years old should go to the Public Records Office.- If this were explained the Land Commissioners would be placed in a better position to report on the question raised.

  Salaries of English and Irish Prison Officials.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what salaries do warders, matrons (assistant), and clerks in the English prison service receive; what salaries do warders, assistant matrons, and clerks in the Irish prison service receive; is it the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of warders and assistant matrons in the Irish prison service, whose duties are as arduous as those of officers in the English service, on the same lines as is about to take effect in April next in England; and, as clerks in the Irish prison service, whose duties are as difficult as in England, have to serve seventeen and a half years to get an increment of £35, an equal amount being given in increments in England in seven years, will the Government consider the advisability of giving clerks in the Irish service their total increments in seven years and placing them on the same footing as to salary as in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The present rates of pay of the officers mentioned in both the English and the Irish prison services will be found in the Estimates for the current year. The Irish Government have no knowledge of any intention to increase the salaries of English prison officers, and if the hon. Member desires information on the subject he should address my right hon. friend the Home
  1488
  Secretary. The question of increasing the pay of Irish prison officers has not recently been under consideration.

  Married Women's Property—Liability of Wife with Separate Estate.
  MR. MACLEAN: To ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of the advantages conferred upon married women in respect of debts incurred by them for necessaries, as recently shown in the case of "Paquin v. Beauclerk," he will take an early opportunity of introducing legislation for the purpose of rendering the separate estate of the wife liable where the husband cannot be compelled to pay.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) This subject is being seriously considered. I cannot at present express any opinion upon it.

  Removal of Bag Room at Glasgow Post Office.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the intention of the postmaster of Glasgow to have the bag room at Glasgow removed to the basement of the building; and if the opinion of the district medical officer has been obtained as to the advisability of such a change; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) One of the two bag rooms at Glasgow is at present on the ground floor and the other in the basement. As part of a scheme of much needed improvements in the accommodation, including better cloak rooms and retiring rooms for part of the staff, it is proposed to give more space for the bag rooms and to put both in the basement. I understand that he medical officer has, in conversation, expressed doubts about the advisability of this arrangement, but I have not received any Report from him. I have directed that he should be consulted further before the alterations are carried out.

  Reduction of Shrewsbury Telegraph Staff.
  MR. HENRY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take into consideration, should further reduction be necessary in the

  1489
  telegraph force at Shrewsbury, that this may be made from the female staff rather than that the married men should be compelled to leave Shrewsbury and go to other towns and, when vacancies occur which have to be filled up, that the appointment should be made, if possible, of men in preference to women.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Until the time comes for reducing the staff at Shrewsbury it is impossible for me to say how the reduction, should be effected, but the hon. Member may be assured that all the circumstances to which he refers will be fully considered and the reduction made with the least possible hardship to any section of the staff.

  Promotion of Assistant Surveyors of the Civil Staff for Engineer Services.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the serious block in the promotion of the assistant surveyors of the civil staff for engineer services; whether the amelioration of the alleged grievances of this body have been now under consideration for some nine years; and what early steps, if any, he proposes to take to remedy this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I can assure my hon. friend that no time has been lost since the present Government came into office in the consideration of this question. Adeputation of the officials concerned has been received at the War Office, and the Army Council hope that they will be in a position to give a decision upon the matter early next session.

  Gun Licence for Michael Cronin of Listowel.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Michael Cronin, of Finuge, Listowel, has applied for and was refused a gun licence; and, seeing that Michael Cronin is a man of high character and respectability, whether he will state on what grounds or for what reason his application was refused.
  (Answered, by Mr. Bryce.) The discretion of issuing arms licences is vested in the resident magistrate of the district,
  1490
  and it would be quite contrary to practice to state the grounds which influence a resident magistrate in the exercise of that discretion.

  Bonuses Paid Under the Land Act.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will have prepared a Return, made up to date, of all persons to whom bonus has been paid under the Land Act of 1903, showing in respect of each the county in which the land sold is situate, the amount of bonus paid in respect of tenanted and untenanted land respectively, the number of years purchase of rent paid for the former; and will he have this information given periodically in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question of 13th instant,†when he asked for a somewhat similar Return. For the reasons then fully stated, the Land Commission do not think it desirable, to give the Return now asked for. Full particulars of the number of years purchase given for tenanted land, and of the prices paid for untenanted land, appear in the Annual Reports of the Land Commission.

  Irish Local Taxations Accounts.
  MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will take steps immediately to have the annual statement of receipts and expenditure of the Irish Local Taxation Account for each year since the passing of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, laid before Parliament with the least possible delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Delay in Erection of Fishery Harbour at Long Hole, Bangor, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Department of Agriculture offered to contribute towards the cost of erecting a fishery harbour at Long Hole, Bangor,
  †See Col. 648.

  1491
  county Down; whether the County Down County Council caused plans to be prepared; whether he can state the cause of the delay in proceeding with the work; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that under present arrangements the boats can only enter or leave this harbour for about two hours before and after high water, thus curtailing the time for fishing to about three hours in the day.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture offered to contribute one-fourth of the cost of the improvements at this harbour which were planned by the county surveyor and were estimated to cost £10,000. The county council, however, have no legal power to expend their funds on the harbour, which, being private property, is not vested in them. Access to the harbour by fishing boats is not possible before half tide.

  Irish National School Teachers Examinations.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether as national teachers under the old system obtained first of first class only after scoring an exceptionally high percentage on a difficult set of papers, embracing a wide range of subjects, and were only permitted to sit for examination after both head and district inspectors had certified that their schools had been conducted in a highly efficient manner for the three years preceding, he will, as a reward of scholarship and successful school keeping, direct the Commissioners of National Education to give special consideration to the case of any of these, with the requisite average attendance, who may yet be placed, under the new order of things, lower than first of first grade, in the event of any rearrangement of the salaries of Irish national teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the facts are substantially as stated in the earlier part of the Question. The Commissioners have submitted proposals on the subject in connection with next year's Estimates, and these are now under consideration.

  Sale of Colonel Malone's Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that on taking office he cancelled and superseded certain regulations and instructions affecting the sale of land, because they conflicted ith the law and with the intentions of Parliament, whether he will take steps to prevent the sale of Colonel Malone's estate being carried out, for the benefit of two graziers and to the permanent detriment of sixty necessitous families, under the old instructions and in a way which the Estates Commissioners would not permit under the regulations and instructions now in force.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am afraid that I cannot with advantage add any thing to the very full replies which I gave to the hon. Member's Questions on this subject on 17th instant.†The power of making advances for land purchase is vested by law in the Estates Commissioners. The hon. Member must understand that the construction which he places on the regulations is not admitted.

  Game Reserves in East Africa.
  MR. WHITBREAD: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has observed the estimate by Mr. F. J. Jackson, Deputy Commissioner for the East African Protectorate, given on page 344 of, [Cd. 3189], that the revenue derived from game licences, Customs dues, and other expenditure by hunting parties in that Protectorate cannot be less than £20,000 annually; that, in Mr. Jackson's opinion, the only hope of keeping up this revenue lies in the establishment of an efficient game ranger's department; whether the Government are taking, or contemplate taking, steps to establish such a department on an; adequate scale; whether the areas of the reserves in the East African Protectorate, the Budonga and Toro reserves in Uganda, and the Elephant Marsh reserve in British Central Africa have been reduced during the present year; if so, whether the Secretary of State has sanctioned such reductions; whether
  †See Col. 990–992.

  1493
  the regulations of the East Africa Game Ordinance, 1906, as to the size of ivory, have been relaxed as to ivory in transit from Uganda; whether his attention has been called to the remarks by Mr. Jackson, in paragraph 4, page 342, of the same Blue-book, on the trade in game hides from German East Africa via Mombasa; and whether the Government will take steps to check such trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of his Question I would refer him to Lord Elgin's despatch at page 386 of Cd. 3189, in which his Lordship instructed the Commissioner of the East Africa Protectorate to bring forward the question of establishing a Game Ranger's Department in connection with the Estimates for 1907–8. These estimates will be received very shortly, and the matter will then be carefully considered. With regard to the third part of the Question, the boundaries of the reserves in the East Africa Protectorate have been re-defined by the Ordinance of the 14th April, a copy of which is printed at pages 356–365 of Cd. 3189;but, so far as I can see, no important reductions have been made. The Budonga and Toro reserves in Uganda have been reduced during the present year, but, as the hon. Member will see on reference to page 354 of Cd. 3189, the former reserve is still approximately 560 square miles in extent and too large and difficult to be systematically controlled without a special staff, while the area of the latter is now about 970 square miles, the original boundaries having extended beyond all practical requirements. The area of the elephant marsh reserved in British Central Africa has been reduced since its establishment in 1897, but, so far as I am aware, no reduction has been made during the present year. The reductions referred to above have been sanctioned by the Secretary of State. With regard to the fourth part of the Question, Section 7 of the Game Ordinance of the East Africa Protectorate, No. 9 of 1906, empowers the Commissioner to make rules legalising the export in transit through the Protectorate of any ivory lawfully acquired
  1494
  in Uganda, even though of less weight than the minimum allowed by the Ordinance. The reasons for this exception are given at page 354 of Cd. 3189. With regard to the fifth part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to Lord Elgin's despatch which is printed at page 386 of Cd. 3189, and from which he will see that the Commissioner of the East Africa Protectorate has been requested to consider whether some arrangements cannot be made for stopping the trade in question.

  The State of the Congo—Interference of the Powers.
  MR. T. R. BETHELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Power has shown a disposition to join with this country in bringing pressure to bear on the Government of the Congo Free State with a view to putting an end to the atrocities perpetrated in that territory.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Tottenham on the 14th instant,†respecting a communication from the United States Government, to which I have nothing to add.

  Diseased Pigs—Compensation for Seizure.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of pigs which passed the Government veterinary inspectors at the port of embarkation were seized and destroyed in Birmingham in the interest of the public; and whether, as the owners have complied with every requirement of the law, he will insert a clause in his Bill now before the House which will provide compensation for all such losses in future.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that pigs coming from Ireland are examined by Government veterinary inspectors at the port of embarkation, and I presume that it is to this inspection that the hon. Member refers. I am not able to state the exact proportion of Irish pigs sent to Birmingham, but I
  †See Col. 664.

  1495
  understand that, whilst the number of them is much larger than that of English pigs, the percentage condemned for tuberculosis is much smaller. The Bill mentioned in the last part of the Question has now been withdrawn.

  Vagrancy—Suggested Legislation.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government contemplate bringing in a Bill next session for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vagrancy, or any of them.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As, I stated recently in reply to my right hon. friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division, I am in communication with the Home Secretary on the subject, but I am not in a position to give any intimation as to legislation next session with regard to it.

  Postal Service at Ballydoo, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Post master General whether he will arrange to have a letter box erected at Ballydoo, Mayobridge, county Down, and to have it cleared once a day by the present postman; whether he is aware that nine Belfast linen houses have agencies in the district employing about 600 women and girls, and that inconvenience is caused by the defective service; and whether, as the extra cost could not exceed 5s. a week, he will take steps to have the required accommodation provided at once.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.

  Building of New Post Office at Newcastle, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can say when the building of the new post office at Newcastle, county Down, will be begun.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is hoped that the building will be begun early next year.

  Postal Facilities at Stafford town, County Antrim.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to a memorial signed by the residents of the Stafford town postal district, near Randallstown, county Antrim, and forwarded by them to the secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, asking for a change in the mode of delivering the letters by which a saving of several hours would be effected and an opportunity given for replying to letters on the same day as that on which they were received; and what steps he is prepared to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not yet seen the memorial referred to, but I can assure the hon. Member that it shall receive careful consideration.

  Working of Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Act, 1906.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Act, 1906, is now in operation; and, if so, whether he has any official Reports showing that it is rendering the Act of 1895 effective and useful.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The Act came into operation on the 4th of August last. During the four months up to 3rd December, 155 inquiries were held, and in twenty-four of these the verdicts of the juries contained recommendations or expressions of opinion of a special nature. In every case where a jury made a recommendation with the view of suggesting means for preventing or lessening the risk of the recurrence of such accidents the recommendation has been brought under the notice of the deceased's employers. In some cases special notice has been taken by the Government inspectors, and, it is understood, communicated by them to their departments. In many cases the special verdicts appear to have been of much value in pointing out defects in machinery and in methods of working, and there seems little reason to doubt that the Act is tending strongly towards the avoidance of risk of injurious or fatal accidents to employees. There have been four inquiries under Section 3 of the new Act. It is reported to me by

  1497
  the Crown Office that the recent statute appears to have made an effective and useful amendment of the previous Act of 1895. I may add that I am in communication with my right hon. friend the Home Secretary on the subject of issuing such instructions as will secure that in the administration of the statute due advantage shall be taken of the services of the skilled inspectors, while on the other hand preserving the independent position which these gentlemen ought in my opinion to occupy. The working of the Act is being made the subject of careful observation in my own and other public departments.

  Purchase by the Indian Government of Property at Simla.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have given notice of purchasing, under the Lands Acquisition Act, the property called "Constantia" at Simla, which has been acquired with great difficulty and expense to provide much needed holiday homes for working women and girls at Simla, and for entry on which on 31st December every arrangement had been made; and whether other sites could be found available for Government purposes the taking of which would not be attended with inconvenience to a charitable institution conferring great public benefit.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Government of India have notified their intention of purchasing this property for a public purpose. The area of Simla is so limited that Government must have the first claim upon sites. But though they may find it necessary to insist on purchasing "Constantia," I have reason to hope that they may be able to arrive at a friendly settlement with its owners by the provision of a suitable site elsewhere.

  Publication of Army Pay Warrants.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether recent Army Orders and Warrants affecting soldiers'pay have been laid before Parliament; and, if not, whether it would be possible to circulate to Members any
  1498
  such Warrants as have been issued since the commencement of July last, including the instructions affecting service pay after 30th September, as well as proficiency pay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Royal Warrants affecting soldiers' pay, which have been issued since the commencement of July last, are: (a) That dealing with the additional pay of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men (Army Order 153, July); and (b) That dealing with soldiers' emoluments (Army Order 231, October). I may point out that Army Orders are on sale monthly at a cost of 3d., and thus accessible to all interested in Army matters. A copy of the Monthly Army Orders is also placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of members. I will, of course, lay those referred to above upon the Table of the House if there is a general desire for them.

  Army Discharges—Home and Overseas Stations.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mediterranean stations which count for linking purposes as Home stations under the Short Tour system are being counted as stations beyond the seas for the purpose of keeping time-expired men for an additional twelve months under Section 87 of the Army Act; whether he has any official reports showing that men who extended service to complete eight years with the Colours, and obtain Service Pay, were given to understand that by such extension they did not become liable to serve for another year if abroad on the expiration of the eight years; and whether he is able to make any statement on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In the circumstances at present existing, it has been found necessary to send out Home battalions a year or two before their linked battalion comes home. Such units being on Foreign Service, the men therein are kept for the extra year if abroad. Men who extended to obtain service pay extended to complete a fixed term, and are not, therefore, liable for the extra year in addition. They are brought home just prior to the expiration

  1499
  of their extended service or with all convenient speed on its termination.

  Return of Accidents to Battleships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to a list of seventy-six collisions and groundings of warships during 1905, given in the Return No. 319 issued on Monday, 10th December, whether the following have been omitted, and, if so, for what reason: "Vixen" and "Lee" in collision on or about 4th May, "Whiting" in collision at Wei-Hai-Wei on or about 30th June, H.M.S. "Jupiter" in collision off Dover with a Danish schooner and a brigantine on or about 27th July, and "Furious" in collision with "St. Vincent" while proceeding out of Portsmouth Harbour on or about 12th September.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is regretted that the collision of the "Vixen" and "Lee," and of the "Jupiter," and the Danish brigantine "Caroline" were omitted from the Return in question by inadvertence. The repairs to the "Vixen" occupied three weeks, and the damage to the "Jupiter" was too slight to require special repairs. There is no record of any mishap to the "Whiting" and "Furious" on the dates named.

  Sale of Chains and Cables of Obsolete War Vessels.
  MR. HOOPER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the cables and chains belonging to the obsolete war vessels are sold without being treated according to the Order of 1894 relating to disused Government chains.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Chain cables of His Majesty's ships are periodically examined and if found to be unserviceable are mutilated at the dockyards before being offered for sale. But if any chain cables left on board obsolete ships when sold are still fit for use, and would continue to be used if the ships were retained, this cable is not mutilated. It is usual in selling any vessel to sell with her the minimum of cable required for mooring.

  Vacancies in Top Rates of Pay in His Majestys Dockyards.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are now, and have been for years vacancies, at the top rates of pay in His Majesty's dockyards; and whether he can see his way to have such vacancies filled up without any further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am not clear to what trade or trades my hon. friend refers, but it must frequently happen that there are vacancies in some of the classified trades at or near the maximum rates which remain unfilled in consequence of the provision in the Home Dockyard Regulations that as a condition of advancement in pay there must be eligible men from among whom the selection can be made.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Government Contractors and Fair Wage Rates.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Messrs. Beard more and Company, Government contractors, Glasgow, do not at their Mossend works conform to the fair wages clause by paying the recognised district rate to enginemen, crane men, boiler men, and firemen, and also to steel smelters in their employ; that the firm have refused to consider a petition submitted by the men's society requesting recognition of their society; that men have been dismissed who, through their union, requested the observance of the district rates; and what steps he proposes to take to insure the observance by this firm of the fair wages clause.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert, Devonshire, South Molton): In answer to inquiry made by the Admiralty, this firm state that the recognised district rate of wages is paid to all their workmen, that no men have been dismissed who, through their union, requested the observance of the district rates; that, as a matter of fact, no such request has ever been made to them; and that they are always willing to recognise a workmen's society, when

  1501
  such recognition is desired by a majority of the workmen employed in any branch of work.
  MR. O'GRADY: My Question has special reference to the Mossend works. I quite understand the fair rate is paid at the Glasgow works.
  *MR. LAMBERT: I will inquire further.

  Carbons for the Navy and Coast Defence.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the carbons required for the searchlights of the Royal Navy and the coast defences under its charge are British made; and if the Board of Admiralty are satisfied that an ample supply will be forthcoming in the event of war.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first part is in the affirmative. It is believed that sufficient provision is now made for the supply of carbons for searchlights, but the Admiralty are taking steps to make the position as secure as possible.

  Naval Bases and Dock Accommodation for the Fleet.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the new Home Fleet is to be nominally based upon Sheerness, and that there are neither at that port nor at Chatham any docks capable.of accommodating vessels of the "Dreadnought" or "Invincible" classes, and that these ports, as well as Portsmouth, are only accessible to battleships at certain states of the tide and for a limited portion of each day, he will state whether it is the intention of the Government to create an effective and always accessible naval base for the Home Fleet on the East Coast; and whether, with this object in view, the works at Rosyth will be pressed on with all possible speed.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The Answer to the first part is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I can only repeat the Answer given on 6th December that the matter is receiving careful consideration,†and plans are being prepared for the information of the Board.
  †See (4) Debates, clxvi., 1167.
  MR. JENKINSasked if the Admiralty would consider the advisability of creating such accommodation at the home dockyards as was required for the modern warship.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chatham basin is crowded with ships which have come in for Christmas, and it would take a week to get them out?
  *MR. LAMBERT: That is a piece of information rather than a Question.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it into consideration?
  *MR. LAMBERT: Yes.
  CAPTAIN HERVEY: I called attention to this question months ago.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order.

  Rosyth.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is estimated that the creation of an effective naval base at Rosyth would necessarily occupy a period of not less than seven years from the date of commencing active work thereon; and if he can state what arrangements are to be made in the meantime to provide an effective base for the Home Fleet in the neighbourhood of the East Coast.
  *MR. LAMBERT: How long it will take to complete the formation of the naval baseat Rosyth must depend on the nature of the scheme finally adopted. In the meantime, the docking facilities of the United Kingdom are sufficient for the requirements of the Home Fleet.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether there were any docking facilities available for ships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" class within the reach of the East Coast.
  * MR. LAMBERTreplied that there was docking accommodation for the "Invincible," he believed, at Chatham. But this was a technical matter, and if the hon. Gentleman wanted accurate information he would get it for him.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the docking facilities of which he spoke were only available for about 140 days in each year.
  *MR. LAMBERT: I should like notice of that.
  MR. J. WARDasked whether there were any men at present engaged in connection with the development of Rosyth, and if so, whether these were in the direct employment of the Admiralty or in the employment of a contractor.
  *MR. LAMBERT: At the present moment there are only preliminary surveys going on at Rosyth. There is, I believe, a contractor sinking a cylinder there. There is no other work than that going on.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what progress, if any, is being made with the new naval base at Rosyth; whether the superintending engineer who has been in charge of this work from the commencement is to be shortly transferred to another post, and, if so, for what reason; and what arrangements are being made to replace him and to carry on the work.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The detailed borings are approaching completion, a trial cylinder is being sunk, and the branch railway to the site is practically completed. The superintending engineer at present employed at Rosyth will be transferred to Portsmouth on the completion of these preliminary works. There will be no need to replace him until such time as it becomes necessary actually to commence an approved scheme for the naval base, for which the detailed plans have not yet been fully prepared.
  MR. LEE: Are we to understand that this means that the works at Rosyth have been indefinitely postponed?
  *MR. LAMBERT: The hon. Gentleman must take the reply I have given as being my reply.
  MR. J. WARDasked whether there was already sufficient information from
  1504
  the boring that had taken place to justify him in saying that the Admiralty had practically decided that this was an unsuitable place for a naval base.
  *MR. LAMBERT: No, Sir, I do not think the hon. Gentleman must take that from my reply.
  Mr. E. H. LAMBasked the hon. Gentleman whether, if the Admiralty saw fit to continue the work at Rosyth, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter before it was actually put in hand.
  *MR. LAMBERT: Of course, on the Naval Estimates next year.

  Portsmouth Docks.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that there is at present no lock entrance to the basin and docks at Portsmouth capable of admitting vessels of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" classes, and that the basin and docks are therefore closed to vessels of this class for about eighteen hours out of every twenty-four, steps will be taken to commence without further delay the new lock entrance which the late and present Boards of Admiralty have stated to be an urgent necessity.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The question is at present occupying the attention of the Board.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: May we take it that no irrevocable step will be taken before the Naval Estimates are considered by the House?
  [The Answer was inaudible.]

  Training of Naval and Marine Officers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the printed Report of the lecture delivered by the Director of Naval Education on the new schemes of entering and training naval and marine officers was printed and distributed to the ships at the taxpayers' expense.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  "The Truth about the Navy."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that an anonymous book entitled "The Truth about the Navy," consisting largely of magazine articles extolling Admiralty policy, has been issued to His Majesty's ships; whether these books have been issued at the taxpayers' expense; and, if so, to what Vote they are charged.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The pamphlet in question has been issued to ships without any official approval being given to its contents. The expense will be charged to Vote 2 which bears the cost of ships' libraries.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman whether in his opinion this does not amount to a secret commission to journalists to induce them to defend the Admiralty?
  *MR. LAMBERT: That is a matter of opinion, and my opinion is of just the same value as that of my hon. friend.

  Pimlico Clothing Factory.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the employees engaged at the Pimlico Clothing Factory are to lose a day's work on 24th December, and are to be stopped one day's wages for the same; whether this will apply with equal force to the officials; and why this course is to be taken for the first time in the history of the department.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane, Haddington): Pimlico is a place from which a good I many unreliable rumours appear to emanate. The hon. Member has been misinformed, as it is not the intention to close the Royal Army Clothing Department on the 24th instant.

  Pay of Regular Officers with the Volunteers.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an order recently issued to the effect that travelling expenses incurred by staff and other officers of the Regular
  1506
  Army on full pay, including adjutants of Volunteers, when undertaking certain duties in connection with Volunteer corps, such as conducting war games, directing staff rides, and attending field days, cannot be defrayed from Army funds; and whether seeing that the expenses incurred by officers undertaking these duties will fall upon their own private purse, and will tend to discourage the officers of the Regular Army who have not private means from rendering valuable and most desirable aid in the training of Volunteers, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing this order.
  MR. HALDANE: Army Order 130 of 1906 provides for the travelling expenses of Volunteer brigadiers and brigade majors, and adjutants' travelling expenses are provided for under paragraph 477 Volunteer Regulations. These provisions cover the cases of Regular or ex-Regular officers who are primarily charged with training Volunteers, and I, therefore, see no necessity for modifying the order in question.

  Railway Extension in Nigeria.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the railway extensions in Nigeria, whether the State, the natives, or white planters will receive the enhanced value of the land through which the railway passes; and whether he will take steps, by means of valuations or otherwise, to ensure to the taxpayers of this country this enhanced value due to the expenditure of their money.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill, Manchester, N.W.): The cost of the railway extension at present authorised will be met by Southern Nigeria, so that the British taxpayer will not be affected. As regards any further extension or construction in Northern Nigeria which may be authorised in future no definite statement can be made, but the matter will not be overlooked.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: Will Southern Nigeria get the benefit of the increased, land values also?
  MR. CHURCHILL: When a railway is built through land the persons owning the land, under our present dispensation, get the advantage of its enhanced value. A great proportion of the land is owned by the State, and other portions are owned by the natives. I think a very considerable proportion of the enhanced value will be secured to the State. We will make every effort to secure as much of the land as possible which is raised in value by the railway.
  MR. HIGHAMsuggested that the example set in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway should be followed, and that the land on each side of the track should become the property of the State.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think that is a very important aspect of the question. I will do my best to bring it to the notice of the Secretary of State.
  MR. WEDGWOODasked whether, even where the land was privately owned, it would not still be possible by valuation at intervals to secure for Nigeria or for this country the increased value.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think that is a very important point, and it will not be overlooked. There should be no speculative value in land in Nigeria.

  Crown Agents Office Reserve Fund.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the office reserve fund of the Crown Agents' Office on 31st December last; and, if it was anything like the sum of nearly £300,000 at which it stood on 31st December, 1902, whether, seeing that the reserve fund would suffice to meet current requirements for some years, he will suspend the system under which the funds at the disposal of the Crown Agents' Office increase in direct ratio to any increase in expenditure upon public works of the Colonies and Protectorates for which they are the commercial and financial agents in the United Kingdom, with a view to the substitution of a system under which the Crown Agents will no longer have a direct interest in such increase of expenditure in these Colonies and Protectorates, some of which
  1508
  are supported by grants-in-aid from the Treasury.
  MR. CHURCHILL: On 31st December last the nominal value of the investments held on behalf of the Crown Agent's Office reserve fund amounted to £314,023. The Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not at present in excess of actuarial requirements, but if at any future time it should show a tendency to undue increase, the question of a reduction in the charges made to the Colonies will as heretofore receive consideration. The hon. Member does not appear to have perused fully the Papers referred to in my replies to him of the 31st July and the 19th November,†as paragraphs 3 and 17 of the memorandum in Cd. 1944 show clearly that the Crown Agents have absolutely no interest,, direct or indirect, in an increase of expenditure by the Governments for which, they act.

  Congo Free State.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether having regard to the decision arrived at in the Belgian Chamber as to the annexation of the Congo Free State, and having regard to the declarations of King Leopold, in his letter of 3rd June last, claiming that in any annexation the continuance of his arrangements with existing companies and concessions should be guaranteed, he will now take steps to convene an International Conference of the Powers who have treaty rights and obligations as to the Congo, so as to ensure that any final settlement of the future of the Congo Free State by annexation by Belgium or otherwise shall be carried out under explicit conditions and guarantees to protect the natives from the cruelties of its existing administration, and to secure just administration, under some form of effective joint European control.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Runciman, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The debate in the Belgian Chamber has only just concluded, and may, apparently,, lead to Belgium taking over the Congo State in a short time. It is not desirable to prejudice the chances of this solution
  †See (4) Debates, clxii., 700; clxv., 384.

  1509
  by any other form of interference at this moment, which would have a less definite and effective result in changing or controlling the Administration of the Congo. In any case, it is not in the power of His Majesty's Government to convene a Conference. This can only be done by the consent of the other Powers interested, who would have to be consulted first. My right hon. friend would, however, remind the hon. Member of the Answer which has already been given respecting the opinion of the United States.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGasked whether the right Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had considered the fact that the proposed policy of annexation had been repeatedly postponed and frustrated, and whether the Conference which he suggested would not strengthen the hands of the Belgian Parliament in dealing with the question.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend is taking all these matters into consideration, and the statement I have made is the only one that can be made at the present moment.

  London County Council Tram Profits.
  *MR. WATERLOW: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by Mr. Hayward, Comptroller of the London County Council, before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the London County Council tramways this year, in which on Table 1 it shows, for the year 1905–6, £4,000 as the amount of income-tax on a profit of £80,000; whether there is included in this amount of profit the statutory sinking fund; whether it is customary in all reproductive municipal undertakings to assess the sinking fund as part of the profit of such undertakings; and, if so, whether in all Returns to Parliament on the financial results of such municipal undertakings, the sinking fund will be shown as part of the profits earned.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fife, E.): I have not seen the evidence of Mr. Hayward to which my hon. friend refers, but I have no doubt the facts are as represented. As regards the assessment to income-tax I under Schedule D, I have already ex-
  1510
  plained that I am not at liberty to disclose the details in any particular case. With reference to municipal undertakings of a profit earning character generally, I may say that such undertakings are by law assessable on the whole of their profits, no deduction being made for any portion of such profits which may be carried to a sinking fund. The question as to the form of Parliamentary Returns relating to municipal accounts is one for my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board rather than for myself.

  Income Tax on Interest on Foreign Securities.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if interest on Foreign Government securities, which is not payable in the United Kingdom but has to be sent abroad for payment, such as French rentes, Italian rentes, and Japanese internal loan, are not included in the schedule of foreign securities; and if, in consequence, British subjects resident abroad have a right to a refund of income-tax on such interest when paid into a banking account in the United Kingdom.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not very clear what is meant by "interest which has to be sent abroad for payment," nor am I acquainted with any "schedule of foreign securities." The liability of a British subject domiciled abroad to income-tax upon dividends on investments depends on whether the dividends are, or are not, payable in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member can give me a concrete instance of what he has in mind, I will make inquiry.

  Income-Tax—Schedules C and D.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, why the rule applicable to Schedule D of the income-tax is not also applicable to Schedule C, under the Act which provides that every provision in this Act contained and applied to the duties in any particular schedule which shall also be applicable to the duties in any other schedule, and not repugnant to the provisions for charging, ascertaining, or levying the duties in such other schedule, shall, in charging, ascertaining, and levying the same, be applied as fully and

  1511
  effectually as if the application thereof had been so expressly and particularly directed; anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
  MR. ASQUITH: The directions contained in the Act for assessment under Schedule C are comprehensive and precise, and the application to assessments under that schedule of the provisions relating to Schedule D to which the hon. Member refers, would clearly be repugnant to those directions.

  London Police Stations and the Telephone.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet decided to have all the metropolitan police stations connected with the general telephone system; and, if so, when will the arrangement come into force.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): The experiment of connecting certain police stations with the public telephone system has been tried, and has been so far successful that a considerable extension is contemplated.

  Metropolitan Police Commission.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the expense to the public of the Metropolitan Police Commission up to the present time, how much it costs the police fund per sitting, and whether he can say when the police will be able to take up their ordinary duties.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that I cannot give the particulars of expense to the police fund up to the present time. The total expense incurred has not yet been worked out, and the cost per sitting varies according to the extent of the inquiries which it may have been necessary to make, the number of officers who have to be present, the attendance of counsel, and other circumstances. I cannot say when the Commission will be able to conclude their labours, but I understand that they have not at present been able to fix dates for hearing the witnesses who wish to give evidence in favour of the police.

  Newbury Conviction under the Game Laws.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the conviction, on 6th December, by the Newbury county magistrates, of a lad called Jesse Fry, for trespassing in pursuit of game by throwing a stone on Greenham Common, on his way home from Sunday school, which is alleged to have killed a rabbit; whether he is aware that a fine of 7s. 6d. was inflicted for this act; and whether, with a view to prevent the respect for the administration of justice being lessened, he will consider the propriety of remitting the fine.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: My attention had not previously been called to this case, and I have no information beyond the newspaper cutting which my hon. friend was good enough to send to me, but I am making inquiries into it.

  Enteric at Wandsworth.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the numerous cases of enteric which have been reported in His Majesty's prison, Wandsworth, during the last few years; whether he is aware that six cases have been notified this year; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the health of the prisoners.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It is the fact that some cases of enteric fever of a mild type have occurred at Wandsworth Prison during the past few years, and that during the present year there have been six such cases. All possible precautions were taken on each occasion to prevent a spread of the disease. Inquiry showed that some of the cases were imported from outside, as must occasionally occur in prisons with a large floating population. As, however, there was reason to believe that certain of the later cases originated within the prison, a thorough investigation into their origin has been made, with the result that steps are now being taken to remedy certain sanitary defects which have been discovered, and to reconstruct the old drainage of the prison.

  Motor Bus Drivers' Pay.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is becoming a common practice to compel motor 'bus drivers to drive their 'buses on the piecework system, by which they must complete a certain mileage to secure a day's pay, varying from thirteen to nineteen hours per day (often without intervals for food); and whether, in the interest of public safety, he will, at an early date, introduce legislation that would secure a maximum working day at this work of nine hours per day.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Motor 'bus drivers in some instances receive their full rate of pay for the performance of a fixed number of journeys per day. For lost journeys some deduction is made. I understand that the hours of work of motor drivers average about nine and a half daily, except in the case of the Vanguard Company, who on one route employ their drivers for thirteen and a half hours a day, giving them one day's rest in three. The average day on this route is thus one of nine hours.

  Horn sea Sea Defences.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the town of Hastings has, during the present year, been granted borrowing powers for a period of fifteen years for sea-defence groynes of a light character, he will assist the town of Horn sea, East Yorkshire, by granting them similar powers for groynes of a substantial and expensive character.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): I do not find that the Local Government Board have sanctioned any loans for groynes at Hastings during the present year. They have recently sanctioned a loan for limber groynes at Horn sea, and in accordance with their usual practice in the case of groynes of this character the period for the repayment of the loan has been limited to ten years.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: If I can prove the fact as regards Hastings, will
  1514
  the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision as regards Horn sea?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I shall be glad to hear anything which will enable me favourably to consider the Horn sea case. I believe at Hastings the loan was for a substantial concrete groyne.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: My information is different.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am confirmed in my view in another quarter of the House.

  Tuberculosis in Pigs.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in the United States of America pig carcases intended for export and which, on post mortem examination, are found to be affected with tuberculosis, are adjudicated by the inspectors by a much more lax standard than that recommended by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis 1898, whose findings have been issued by his Department for the guidance of Home inspectors; and will he take the necessary steps to ensure that all pig carcases slaughtered at home, or abroad if brought to this country, are examined in accordance with the requirements contained in the recommendations of the said Royal Commission.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware that the carcases of pigs intended for export from the United States are not dealt with on the standard recommended by the Royal Commission of 1898. I do not think that pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis which, is now sitting, I could take action of the kind contemplated in the last part of the Question.

  The Norwich Unemployed.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that 962 unemployed persons have registered with the Norwich Distress Committee, of whom 692 are qualified for assistance under the Unemployed Workmen Act; that these figures do not fully represent the number of unemployed

  1515
  within the city; that work can be provided by the distress committee in co-operation with the corporation provided funds are available; whether he has received an application for a share of the grant of £200,000; if so, is he acceding to such request; and will he state what sum is to be thus allocated.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts stated. The distress committee have applied for a share of the Grant, and I have asked for certain information which is necessary to enable me to deal with the application. As soon as this is furnished I hope to come to a decision with regard to it.

  Hatherleigh Sub-Postmaster.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that the post office at Hatherleigh, Devon, has recently been moved into a building occupied by a political club; that the postmaster is an official of the said club, and that there is direct communication between the premises of the club and the post office, and that the postmaster is authorised to deal in liquor; and whether he will endeavour to find other premises for this post office.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The post office at Hatherleigh is not in a building occupied by a political club; the sub-postmaster is not an official of such a club, and there is no direct communication between the post office and the club. The sub-postmaster is a chemist and holds a licence for the sale of wines and spirits in sealed bottles only. I do not consider this sufficient reason for moving the post office to other premises.

  Trade Unions and the Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to inform the House whether trade unions are entitled to deposit their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank; and whether such funds are applicable for the purpose of provident benefits or for the other objects of a union.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that I am now advised that trade unions are entitled under the Savings Bank Acts to deposit their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank without reference to the specific purpose for which such funds are applied. The deposit will be made under the same regulations as to amount as in the case of other charitable and provident societies, that is to say, deposits can be made up to £100 in the year and £300 in the whole with the consent of the Postmaster-General; and to an unlimited amount with the consent of the National Debt Commissioners. On the latter point I am communicating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Gwespyr School Accommodation.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the inquiry which was held at Gwespyr, Flintshire, on Saturday, the 15th instant, with reference to the provision of school accommodation in that district; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Education to publish the shorthand notes of the evidence given at the inquiry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. (Birrell, Bristol, N.): My attention did not need to be called to the inquiry referred to. I have been fully familiar with the case for a long time past, and I took special care as to the holding of an inquiry on Saturday last. I will see that the Report of the inquiry which will be furnished to the Board by the Commissioner in accordance with Section 73 of the Act of 1870 is laid on the Table of the House as soon as a judicial decision is arrived at. The evidence given before the Commissioner, especially as to the evictions, has been very fully reported in the local and other newspapers.

  Publication of New Acts of Parliament.
  MR. PICKERSG1LL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the interval which elapses between the date when a Public Bill in Parliament receives the Royal Assent and the date when copies of the Act of Parliament are obtainable by the public;

  1517
  whether he is aware that copies of The Marriage with Foreigners Act, 1906, which received the Royal Assent on the 29th November, cannot yet be obtained, and that copies of the 23 Acts which ware passed on the 4th August were not obtainable until on or about the 27th August; and whether, having regard to the inconvenience which is caused by this delay, he will communicate with the King's printer with a view to secure earlier publication.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TEEASUEY (Mr. McKenna, Monmouthshire, N.): As soon as I saw my hon. friend's Question on the notice Paper, I made inquiries into the matter, and I am causing steps to be taken by which I hope to effect a considerable improvement.

  Royal Chapel) Holyrood.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can give the House any information with regard to the proposed restoration of the Royal Chapel, Holyrood, or whether the chapel will in any case be put in repair to preserve as much as possible of the old building.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale): I understand that the trustees under Lord Leven's will have declined to act in the matter of the Holyrood bequest, and the legacy therefore falls into the residue of the estate. I am glad to know that Mr. Lethaby, the architect employed by the trustees to examine the building, expressed his opinion that the structure has been most carefully and suitably repaired and preserved by the Office of Works.

  South American and Antwerp Cattle Trade.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if any precautious are taken by the Board of Agriculture to ensure that ships engaged in the cattle trade between South American ports and Antwerp shall not be allowed to enter British ports without disinfection.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Steps are taken to prevent the landing in Great Britain of manure, fodder, and cattle fittings from vessels engaged in the trade to which my hon. friend refers. The vessels themselves are disinfected very thoroughly by the Belgian authorities, and no special action; in this direction has hitherto been considered necessary in this country. We shall, however, be glad to make further inquiry into the matter, the result of which I will communicate to my hon. friend.

  Instruction in the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what action, if any, will be taken by the Commissioners of National Education on the proposals for the proper teaching of Irish put forward by the Gaelic League and submitted to the Commissioners several weeks ago.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Bryce, Aberdeen, S.): The Irish Government and the Commissioners of National Education are still in correspondence on this subject, and I am not yet in a position to state what action the Commissioners may take.

  Crossmolina Road, Greenaum.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Ballina District Council have refused to pass the estimate for the repair and maintenance of a road leading from the Crossmolina Road at Greenaum to the end of the road at Slievenagark, on the ground that it was used by the police who were protecting John Haire, the tenant of the Crannagh farm, who has been denounced by the United Irish League; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take.
  MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have ascertained from the clerk of the Ballina Rural District Council that an application for the repair of the road mentioned in the Question was rejected by the council at their last quarterly meeting, but upon what grounds is unknown to the Board. The Board can

  1519
  only act in a matter of this kind upon complaint being made by the county council that the district council have failed to keep this public road in good repair.

  Police Protection in County Galway.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether police protection is still afforded to Mr. Shaw-Tener, Mr. Frank Shawe-Taylor, and Mr. Perrse, in county Galway; and whether his official information shows that their lives would be safe if the guards were withdrawn.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As respects the second part of the Question, that is a matter of opinion. The police, however, consider it proper to afford protection to the gentlemen named.
  MR. REDDY: Would the conduct of Shaw-Tener and Frank Shawe-Taylor be tolerated in any other civilised country?
  MR. BRYCE: That Question does not appear to arise out of the Answer I have given.

  Grading of Butter.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the cost to the New Zealand Government of grading butter amounts, approximately, to only 1½d. per cwt; and whether, in view of the fact that since the institution of grading in that country the butter has attained a higher standard of value, which is represented by many shillings per cwt., and that the percentage of first-grade butter has risen in consequence from 93 per cent. in 1896 to 97·85 per cent. in 1906, he will state why the Irish Department of Agriculture do not take steps to institute a similar system in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture are not aware of the precise cost to the New Zealand Government of grading butter. They are, however, inclined to believe that the improvement
  1520
  in New Zealand butter is due to the adoption of modern methods of manufacture resulting from expert instruction in dairying, rather than to the system of grading. The Department do not consider that the system of grading suitable for New Zealand could be satisfactorily applied to Ireland, owing to the great difference between the conditions of trade in the two countries. Moreover, the Department have no legal power to enforce a system of grading.
  MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures quoted were given by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies last week? Does he consider that satisfactory?
  MR. BRYCE: I gather from the Answer that the Department of Agriculture do not think it makes any difference.
  MR. BOLAND: But if the Department are not satisfied with the New Zealand figures, will they inquire as to those for Queensland?
  MR. BRYCE: It is not a question of figures at all. It is a question of difference between the butters which makes the practice of New Zealand inapplicable to Ireland.
  MR. GWYNN: What is the difference?
  MR. BRYCE: I think that is a Question of which notice should be given.

  Kells Fishing Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to comply with the request of the fishermen at Kells, county Kerry, that a suitable pier should be provided at that important fishing centre.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that when the Congested Districts Board decided some years ago to build a pier at Roads, which is about two miles from Kells, they duly considered the claims of both places and selected Roads. The Board are not prepared to construct another pier at Kells.

  Mrs. Scully's Tullarvan Estate.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if negotiations for the purchase of the Tullarvan, county Kilkenny, estate of untenanted land of Mrs. E. A. Scully have been renewed; if so, what progress, if any, has been made; and if, owing to the want of untenanted land in that district for the purpose of supplying evicted tenants with holdings, he will use his influence so that the estate may be purchased as soon as possible.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that negotiations for the purchase by them of the estate mentioned have been renewed, and they expect to arrive at a decision in the matter, and to communicate that decision to the owner, in the course of this week.

  Cornamona School Teacher.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what action was taken by the Commissioners of National Education in the case of Mr. Michael O'Malley, principal teacher in Cornamona school, county Galway; what was the allegation against him; whether he resigned his appointment; whether he has since been reinstated; and, if so, whether the National Commissioners have sanctioned his reinstatement.
  MR. BRYCE: I informed the hon. Member on 11th July†last that Mr. O'Malley had resigned his position as principal teacher in Cornamona school. The allegation against him was that he had furnished a certificate of birth which in reality related to another person of the same name. The Commissioners now inform me that Mr. O'Malley subsequently withdrew his resignation, and the manager accepted the withdrawal and asked for the Commissioners' approval. The Commissioners informed the manager that having regard to his local knowledge, they considered the matter was one for his own decision.

  Irish School Teachers Special Grants.
  MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
  †See (4) Debates, clx., 888.
  1522
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount which would be necessary to cover a special grant of £10 per annum to national school teachers in Ireland who have already taken out. University degrees; and whether, if such a sum does not exceed £1,000 per annum, he will take steps to place this amount on the Estimates, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, of National Education of last year.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the cost of giving £10 a year to existing teachers who are University graduates would be about £1,000 a year, but the Commissioners estimate that if the system were applied to teachers who may take degrees in future the cost would ultimately reach £10,000 a year. I do not express any opinion on this particular proposal, as it would need to be weighed whether so considerable an addition to the funds for primary education might not be better employed in some other direction. At the same time, I may say that the advantage of inducing teachers to take University degrees has been shown by the example of Scotland to be, very great indeed.
  MR. SLOAN: Is a proposal for increasing the salaries of the national school teachers under consideration?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, it is now being considered by the Irish Government.

  Irish Intermediate Education Board Rules.
  MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the proposed new rules of the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) for 1908, is included one which requires that candidates should pass in two languages, exclusive of English, in order to qualify; is he aware that, in reply to the Commissioners'circular inviting the opinion of educational bodies and teachers as to the advisability of making such a regulation, the great majority of the replies were entirely opposed to it; and whether these facts will be taken into consideration before the sanction of the House is given to the new rules.
  MR. BRYCE: The rule quoted in the Question is subject to important qualifications, viz.:—Only one language other than English is required in the preparatory grade; students of the three upper grades who have already passed with one language are not required to pass in more than one unless the previous pass was in the preparatory grade; girls are allowed to pass under conditions that do not require them to take two languages. The Board of Intermediate Education obtained the opinions of schoolmasters on the desirability and feasibility of the change, and, though the majority thought it undesirable, there were very few who thought it would not be possible to teach two languages. The teachers' opinions and all the other circumstances of the case were fully considered when the rules were being framed.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the leaving out of the date deprive this House of the right of objecting to this programme in any future year.
  MR. BRYCE: I think not.

  Earl of Annesley's Fishing Rights.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether having regard to the fact that the Earl of Annesley began only last year to pay rates on his alleged rights to the fishing at Shimna River, Newcastle, he can say what steps the Department of Agriculture intends to take to investigate Lord Annesley's claim or to assert the public rights.
  MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture do not propose to take any steps to investigate Lord Annesley's claim to the fishery in question, as they have no power to do so. The matter is one which can only be decided by a court of law. The Department will, however, notify to the local Board of Conservators, who are primarily responsible for the enforcement of the fishery laws in the district, that if they consider that there is a prima facie case against Lord Annesley they should institute proceedings before the magistrates and have the matter tested.

  Mr. Orpen's Glenflesk Estate, Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estate of the representatives of R. D. Orpen, of Glenflesk, county Kerry, is before them for sale; if not, whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the landlord's representatives are willing to sell and the tenants to buy at reasonable prices; whether Messrs. Hogan and Sons, solicitors and land agents, Dublin, have threatened to issue writs against the tenants in order to force them into improper purchases; and whether the Estates Commissioners can take any steps to negotiate a sale or to prevent the tenants being unfairly treated in connection with sale negotiations.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate in question are pending before them, and they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. The Commissioners, however, will be prepared to consider whether they can usefully offer their services as conciliators in pursuance of No. VIII. of the Lord-Lieutenant's Regulations, if any application to that effect should be made to them by the persons interested.
  MR. MURPHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Estates Commissioners will act without receiving any further representations?
  MR. BRYCE: My impression is that it is not competent for them to act unless they receive representations.
  MR. MURPHY: On behalf of the tenants?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes.

  Committals of Galway Children to Industrial Schools.
  MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why three children, John, Margaret, and Brigid Schofield, who were committed to industrial schools at the Galway Petty Sessions on 5th November, have been discharged by his order from the school without reasons given and without communication to the magistrates; and what provision is to be

  1525
  made for these children, whose mother is dead and whose father, being a fisherman, is absent for considerable stretches of time.
  MR. BRYCE: In the cases referred to I was advised that the evidence upon which the children were committed to industrial schools did not justify the orders made by the magistrates, and I had therefore no alternative but to direct the discharge of the children. There is nothing to prevent the children from being again brought up and committed to industrial schools, provided that sufficient evidence is available, but it is of course the father's primary duty to provide for the care of his children.
  MR. GWYNN: I sit possible to find out by whom the information was supplied?
  MR. BRYCE: It was supplied by my usual legal advisers, whom I consulted on the question of law.
  MR. SLOAN: To what school were the children committed?
  MR. BRYCE: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. GWYNN: Am I to understand that the order was discharged on a purely.technical point?
  MR. BRYCE: It was a point of substance rather than a technicality. The magistrate had no power to make the order unless on adequate evidence, and I am advised there was no such evidence; therefore the order could not be enforced.

  Mr. John Haire, of Ardagh.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Swinford Board of Guardians have unanimously adopted a resolution sent to them by the Ballina District Council (county Mayo) in which John Haire, of Ardagh, was specifically denounced as a renegade, a Judas, and a traitor, and that the acting clerk of the Swinford Guardians wrote informing the Ballina Board that this resolution had been passed; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I was not aware of this resolution, but find that one containing the words quoted, apparently cumulative in their effect, was in fact passed. It appears that the district council regard the conduct of this gentleman as having, in their own words, no parallel in history, but it does not appear that he has suffered in any respect, so the matter is not one which calls for the interference of the Government.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think language of this kind conducive to peacable government in Ireland?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think it reflects credit on the council.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: A few weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman said he had no knowledge of this matter.
  MR. BRYCE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest my Answer was incorrect?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: No, Sir.
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member can hardly suppose I have time to peruse all the resolutions passed by the local bodies in Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Did not the hon. Member himself use on one occasion the same language regarding Lord Pirie?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: No, I did not.

  Irish Loan Society Accounts.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Sixmilecross Petty Sessions, county Tyrone, on the 6th instant, Mr. R. S. Clements, J.P., a clerk and debenture holder in the Killadroy Loan Fund Society, adjudicated in claims advanced by his cousin, Mr. R. O. Clements, clerk of Killadroy, Beragh, and Omagh Loan Fund Societies; whether he is aware that the accounts on these claims were not made out in the manner provided by the Charitable Loans Act of this year; and whether, having regard to the pledge given during the passing of the Act that any justice of the peace being also a debenture holder or official who would

  1527
  adjudicate in such cases would be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, he can state what action has been taken in the Clements' case; whether he will call for all the papers in order to see whether any prosecution will lie against either of these gentlemen; and whether he will, meantime, take steps to have the decrees quashed.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, Liverpool, Exchange): I am informed that Mr. R. S. Clements, J. P., is not a clerk or debenture holder in any loan fund society, and; has had no connection with any such society for some years past. I am not aware whether this magistrate adjudicated in the cases of the loan fund society over which his cousin, Mr. R. O. Clements, is receiver; but if such were the case, I am not prepared to say that this action was irregular. The loan fund board inform me that they are not aware whether the accounts referred to were prepared in the manner provided by the Charitable Loans Act of this year; but the Board are aware that the receiver was advised by senior counsel as to the manner in which the accounts should be prepared. No necessity, therefore, appears to exist for considering the matters raised in the concluding parts of the Question, but I desire to say that I am not aware that any such pledge as is mentioned in the Question was given when the Charitable Loans Fund Bill was passing through Parliament.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Bill was before the House I moved an Amendment providing that no justice of the peace should adjudicate in these cases if he were a debenture holder. And has he not said that a magistrate adjudicating under such circumstances would be breaking the law? Will he draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this case?
  MR. CHERRY: I have no intention; of doing that.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Who informed the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Clements was not a debenture holder in this society?
  MR. CHERRY: I cannot answer that Question.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I can tell you who he is.

  The Shaftesbury Estate, Belfast.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Estates Commissioners to the effect that, before sanctioning the sale of the Shaftesbury estate, near Belfast, the Treasury should be afforded an opportunity of appearing by counsel before, them; whether he is aware that the total purchase money agreed by the tenants to be paid would, if invested at 3 per cent., yield 91 per cent. of the gross rental, or more than the net rental, at 3¾ per cent. would yield 109 per cent. of the gross rental, and at 4 per cent. no less than 116 per cent. of the gross rental, or 36 per cent. more than the present net income from the property, besides improving the security; whether the Treasury will represent to the Commissioners that in these figures the landlord has sufficient inducement to sell without also paying to him a bonus at the cost of the Irish taxpayers; and whether the Treasury will advise the Commissioners not to declare the property an estate, but to leave it to be dealt with under one of the previous Purchase Acts and thus save the bonus.
  MR. McKENNA: I have seen an account of this case in the newspapers, but no official Report has reached me on the subject. I am, however, making, inquiries.

  Tenants' Improvements.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in any forthcoming Government Bill dealing with the land question in England and Wales, he will include powers for town tenants to obtain compensation for improvements, and, in the case of long leaseholds, such powers as will enable leaseholders to acquire the freehold upon reasonable terms.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Stirling Burghs): I think it is premature to make any statement on this subject. Our general views are well known.

  Discharges from the Crewe Railway Works.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that over 100 men, many of whom had been employed in the works for periods varying from forty to fifty years, have been dismissed from the Crewe shops of the London and North Western Railway Company; that the mayor of Crewe has issued an appeal on their behalf stating that, owing to their age, they will have great difficulty in procuring other employment; and whether the Government will, on an early day, either by providing old age pensions or some form of employment, make provison for such cases.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no official knowledge of the circumstances, but I have no doubt that the facts are us stated by the hon. Member. I am afraid what has happened affords only one instance the more of the urgent need for some system of old age pensions.

  Gwespyr Education Inquiry.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that it was stated in evidence at the inquiry held on the 15th inst. at Gwespyr, Flintshire, that Sir Pyers Mostyn had caused notice to quit to be served upon thirteen of his tenants for no reason other than that the said tenants had supported the establishment of an undenominational school in the district; and whether the Government propose to take any and what steps by legislation or otherwise, to protect tenants against such eviction.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say anything about this matter at present. The Commissioner will make a formal report to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education whose duty it will be to come to a decision in regard to it. It would be improper for me under these circumstances to offer an opinion upon a case in process of judicial determination.

  The French Separation Law.
  MR. McKEAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is as
  1530
  follows:—If his attention has been called to the recent violent expulsion from France of Monsignor Montagnine, Auditor of the Papal Nuncio to that country, to the seizure of his private papers and correspondence and to the publication of their contents; also if the right hon. Gentleman has been made aware of other similar proceedings connected with the Separation Law of 1905 involving the suppression of public worship as practised by the great majority of the French people; to the prosecution of numbers of French ecclesiastics for merely performing their ordinary duties, duties which are allowed to be discharged in this and every other free country unhampered by any artificial and irritating restraints; and whether under such circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will advise his Majesty, King Edward, to annul and dissolve the alliance between this country and France generally known as the entente cordiale unless and until the French Government undertakes to respect the rights of conscience on the part of, and the rights of property belonging to, French citizens? [Laughter]—"Loud, laughter bespeaks the vacant mind."
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Seeing that the alleged facts complained of are not matters for which the Prime Minister is in any way responsible, and seeing that the Question seems to be couched in the form rather of an argumentative speech, I am of opinion that such a Question should not be asked unless it is submitted at the Table.
  MR. McKEAN: I have submitted the Question to the Prime Minister, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman would answer it. If he is not responsible for the facts, he is responsible for the Government of this country.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have ruled that the Question cannot be put.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Eighth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. WALTER LONGasked as to the business for that day, and suggested that as the Lords' Amendments

1531
to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill had not been circulated the discussion thereon should be postponed.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid they were living from hand to mouth, as it were, their daily food being mostly Amendments of the House of Lords, which came to them in courses which they could not anticipate with certainty. They imagined, however, that to-morrow they would be in a position to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Bill. The Report of the Public Trustee Bill would also be put down.
MR. BRYCEexplained that the copies of the Lords' Amendments to the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill were expected very shortly, and he suggested the House should proceed with the consideration of the first Amendment, which, being of some importance, as it struck out the retrospective character of the Bill, would take some time.
MR. STANLEY WILSONurged that the Public Trustee Bill should be proceeded with first.
MR. JOHN REDMONDobjected to that very strongly as several of his colleagues had come over from Ireland to discuss this matter, and one had to return that night.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that under the circumstances he was willing to act on the suggestion of the Chief Secretary.

TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order read for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Bryce, Aberdeen, S.)said these Amendments divided themselves into three classes. The first were Amendments of a purely drafting character which should not cause any trouble. They were improvements to the Bill and would make it free from ambiguity. The second class of Amendments were machinery. When the Bill left the House there were certain parts which did not contain all the provisions for carrying out the main points of the Bill in detail, and certain provisions
1532
in the nature of machinery were introduced in the House of Lords. These Amendments, taking them all in all, were of importance to the Bill, and would enable it to work with the least possible friction. The third class were Amendments of substance, and he was sorry to say that with scarcely any exception they seemed to him to be regrettable and unfortunate. They were Amendments which would impair the operation of the Bill. He did not think it possible, if the House adhered to the views it expressed on Report, to accept those Amendments en bloc. Some of them would be sufficient to defeat the main object of the Bill. The Government, in another place, did their best to resist the Amendments, and anything that was accepted was agreed to only for the sake of averting greater evil, and was in the nature of a compromise. The Government had done their best to save some of the vital features of the Bill, and if they had not succeeded it had not been the fault of those who represented them in the House of Lords. They had now to consider how they were to deal with the Bill in the form in which it had come back. They were very anxious that the Bill should be passed and that a measure of justice, so long hoped for and so long delayed, should, if possible, be given to the people of Ireland. They, therefore, reluctantly proposed to ask the House to agree to two Amendments which did not commend themselves to their minds and which they believed would impair the value of the Bill. One of these Amendments directed the court to take an account of the time during which the improvements had been enjoyed by the tenant, an Amendment, which, if it were not superfluous, was certainly deleterious. The other was the recasting of the clause providing compensation for disturbance, which had been put in a different form and one likely to work less equitably than that in which it left the House of Commons. These Amendments he should ask the House to accept if they could. There were two other Amendments which he could not ask the House to accept which appeared to strike at the very root of the Bill—one applying to Clause 1 and one to Clause 6, which in the view of the Government destroyed the application of the leading fundamental principles of the Bill. One declared that the operation of the Bill

1533
should not be retrospective, that the provision for making compensation for improvements should not apply to any improvement made before the passing of the Act. To accept that would destroy all the interest of existing tenants in the improvements which they had executed, and it would baulk the hopes which they had been led to entertain that their improvement would not have been made for the landlord's benefit alone, but that the landlord would be required to give compensation for them. That proposition was affirmed by large majorities in the House of Commons, and in respect of the Amendment which had been made he was obliged to ask the House to disagree with the House of Lords. The Amendment to Clause 6 would have the effect of destroying the value of that clause or at any rate of greatly reducing its value. It proposed to limit the amount to be received in respect of compensation for disturbance to three years rent of the premises; where the rent was low that might be altogether inadequate compensation to the tenant for the loss and expense he incurred in having to quit. On these two vital Amendments the Government proposed to stand firm, and having said that he would have no more to say before they approached the consideration of each Amendment in detail.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."
MR. JOHN REDMONDthought the course the right hon. Gentleman had taken in giving the House a general outline of what the Government intended to do was a most convenient one. It would also be convenient if he were to tell the House in a few words what the Irish Party thought about the matter. Of course the Bill was now a Government measure and had been largely recast by the Government, but the fact still remained that it had been introduced by a private Member. The view the Party took was that the Bill as it had come back from the Lords was absolutely worthless. If it was a question of accepting the measure with the Lords' Amendments or of rejecting it, he had no hesitation in saying that he and h is friends would prefer that the Bill should be lost. The Government by
1534
their conduct of the Bill in the Common went upon the lines of accepting as far as possible suggestions and Amendments from Members upon his own side of the House; but they had also accepted and put in the Bill several Amendments before it went to the Lords which did not commend themselves to him and his colleagues. They thought, however, under the circumstances it would be wise for his friends and himself to give the Government a free hand up to a certain point. In the House of Lords the Government proceeded in the same way, and accepted a number of Amendments which he thought were of a most injurious character. The Chief Secretary had told the House that the Government only accepted such Amendments because they were forced to do so in order to stave off other proposals of a still more injurious character. He recognised the difficulty, but he wished to emphasise the fact that the Government had accepted from the opponents of the Bill in both Houses a very large number of Amendments which he and his friends considered injurious. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accept a still greater number of Amendments. He did not believe there was a single Amendment made in the other House which was not restrictive in its character and harmful in its effect, and if he had his way he would not accept a single one of them. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was proposing another course. He proposed to accept Amendments of a most serious nature in order to save the general principles of the Bill. He proposed to accept an Amendment providing that the Court should take into consideration the number of years during which the improvement had been enjoyed by the tenant. The National Members considered that was a very serious Amendment and one for which they could not be responsible. Again, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accept a new clause providing compensation for disturbance which had been inserted in lieu of the clause agreed to by the House of Commons.
MR. BRYCE: Subject to the particular point which I have mentioned.
MR. JOHN REDMONDquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's interruption. Continuing, he said these

1535
were very serious and far-reaching concessions. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman hoped that by going to the length he had done, he would disarm the hostility of the House of Lords and carry the remnant of the Bill through. That was a matter the right hon. Gentleman must decide for himself, but it such was really his thought he (Mr. Redmond) and his friends would not stand in his way. Even with reference to the Amendments which seemed most objectionable they were prepared not to stand in the way. There were, however, two other Amendments made by the House of Lords of such a character that they could not have been entertained or even listened to for one moment in the lower House or by his Party. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to stand firm in regard to those. The first Amendment, viz., that to Clause 1, took away the retrospective character of the Bill, and if that were agreed to the Bill might just as well be thrown into the waste-paper basket. Without it the Bill would not only be worthless, "but its passage would do a distinct injury to town tenants in Ireland. He presumed he might take the statement of the Chief Secretary on that point to amount to this—that the Government agreed with the view that he was putting forward, and that they would not in any circumstances accept that Amendment. He had therefore come to the conclusion that on that point there was no difference between hon. Members from Ireland and the Government, and that if it came to a question of taking the Bill with that Amendment in it or dropping it, they would drop it. He understood that the Government had agreed to accept the new compensation for disturbance clause instead of their own one, but subject to a reservation. The new clause of the Lords had by the last two or three words been made absolutely ridiculous and futile, because the last words of the clause now were, "provided that such compensation for goodwill shall in no case exceed three years rent of a holding." By what extraordinary confusion of mind did any noble Lord come to the conclusion that rent was a measure of the value of goodwill? Anyone who was acquainted with the towns of Ireland—he supposed the same
1536
was true in this country and in Scotland—would know that the rent of premises in those cases was very low and that there were many business establishments in small towns in Ireland where the rent might be only £10 or £20. In. the case of a big country shop the rent might be £30 a year. But the man who by his own capital and enterprise had built a business in those places and had created a valuable goodwill might be making a profit of £200, £300, or £500 a year. Under the operation of this Bill as amended by the Lords if the Landlord unreasonably and without good and Sufficient cause evicted such a man from the premises he would be able to get by way of compensation for disturbance for his goodwill only three years rent, say £30, £40, or £50, while his profits arising from the goodwill probably amounted to hundreds per annum. He gathered from the Chief Secretary that upon this point he was in agreement with the Nationalist Members
MR. BRYCE: Hear, hear.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he gathered, also that if the Lords insisted upon that Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would not give way in another place, but would rather sacrifice the Bill than allow it to be so mutilated. His chief difference with the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this, that he, apparently in the guilelessness and goodness of his nature thought it was possible at the eleventh hour to induce noble Lords to act a little reasonably and to take those obnoxious Amendments out of the Bill. He was afraid noble Lords would do nothing of the kind. he thought all the right hon. Gentleman's concessions on other points, instead of inducing them to be reasonable would have a contrary effect, that the more he conceded to them by accepting their other Amendments the less likely they were to be reasonable. That remained, however, to be put to the test, and he would not stand in the way of the test being applied. And he would end as he began, by saying that if either one or other of the two defects to which he had alluded remained in the Bill he certainly would use every exertion he could to prevent its passing into law.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the course taken by the Chief Secretary marked the difficulty they were in through not having in their hands earlier a copy of the Amendments. A copy had just that moment reached him, and the House had listened to two important speeches—one from the Chief Secretary and the other from the Leader of the Nationalist. Party—both of whom spoke with probably equal authority on this subject. Not having the advantages of the Amendments before them they must submit to the difficulty and do the best they could. The Chief Secretary had dwelt on the Amendments generally. He himself only proposed to say a word on one or two of them. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was a Bill of urgent and vital importance. That being the case it was a little remarkable that it was a Bill brought in by a private Member and only adopted by the Government at the last moment. The Government themselves had been compelled to amend it considerably both in this House and in the other. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Bill was unlike any other Irish Bill connected with the land question. The whole method, principle, and practice of the Bill was applicable to the same class of property in England. Therefore it was obvious that hon. Members representing English constituencies must think it their business to take a very considerable interest in the debates on the Amendments. As to the retrospective character of the Bill, no doubt there was the strongest feeling among those who were not Irish Members on the Opposition side of the House that the proposal was a very dangerous precedent. The Irish land legislation which had hitherto been passed was no precedent for this particular case, and obviously it could not be a precedent for legislation of a similar character in England because there was no analogy between the conditions in the two countries in regard to agricultural tenancies. Although the circumstances in regard to town tenancies in England and Ireland were not identical, undoubtedly if the proposals contained in this Bill were passed with the consent of the official Opposition it would be held
1538
afterwards as a precedent justifying similar action in regard to England, and that would interfere with the freedom of action of his hon. friends. Under these circumstances, while there would be no desire to unduly prolong discussion or to interfere with the passage of the Bill, the Chief Secretary must expect that some of his hon. friends would look at the retrospective aspect of the question not from the Irish point of view but from the point of view of legislation which might afterwards be proposed in regard to the rest of the country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act,"read a second time.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, Liverpool Exchange)moved that the House disagree in said Amendment. As the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had stated, this was a vital Amendment. Every Member from Ireland knew that it affected thousands of owners of property. There were at the present day in all the towns of Ireland hundreds of cases where the tenants had put up valuable improvements upon the land which they held as tenants from year to year or on short term leases. That property was legally and technically the landlords' property; He thought the House would agree with him when he said that in equity and fair play it was the tenants' property.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: No.
MR. CHERRYsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London disagreed but he thought that the vast majority of the House would agree. It had been said that the Government had no precedent for the course they were taking in this case. There were only two instances in which Parliament had dealt with the question of compensation for improvements, and in both cases the Acts had been made retrospective. The first was the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870 dealing with agricultural improvements.

1539
That Act dealt with improvements made before its passing, and he did not think there was one person in Ireland now who would say that the Act was unjust in giving to the tenant the value of the improvements he had made. That Act had been in operation for thirty-five years, and since then Parliament, instead of restricting its retrospective operation had extended it. Hon. Members were aware that by the legislation for fixing fair rents passed in 1881, 1887 and 1896, the principle of compensation for improvements was extended, and the tenant was declared to be exempt from rent in respect of improvements. When in 1896 an alteration was made in the law of compensation for improvements the right which was limited to some extent in 1870 was made more general. As to English legislation, in 1883 the Agricultural Holdings Act extended in a certain degree the right of compensation which had been given thirteen years before. That Act was also retrospective. It seemed therefore that there was ample reason for adhering to a principle which was very valuable. The Government had introduced into this Bill qualifications and provisos in favour of the landlord which were not in the Act of 1870 which would prevent a scintilla of injustice being done to him. The first [sub-section of the second clause distinctly provided that the tenant of a holding was not to be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement if the landlord had made a reasonable offer to continue the tenancy. The result was that no landlord could be compelled to pay for improvements against his will. If he had to pay it would be his own voluntary act, and if the tenant remained in occupation he would not be asked to pay a penny. The Bill distinctly provided that the landlord was only to be asked to pay for the actual value of what he got. It was necessary that the tenant should show that the letting value of the holding had been increased by the improvement. The Government proposed to accept the Amendment providing that the amount of the compensation was never to exceed the capitalised value of the increase in the letting value. Surely if the landlord in future was to get the increase in the rent in respect of money expended by the
1540
tenant there was and could be no injustice in asking him to pay for what he had actually received in value. He did not believe there were many landlords in Ireland who were not anxious to compensate their tenants for improvements made by them which increased the letting value of their property, or who desired to take for nothing the property created by another. Two years ago a friend of his, a landlord, an Orangeman, and a strong Conservative, owned the whole property in a village, including a shop. The rent of that shop was £1 year. He asked his friend on what terms the shop was held, and he replied, from year to year. The tenant had made considerable improvements on the premises and added a building to them. He said to his friend, "Why don't you take the shop from the tenant who only pays £1 a year rent, when you could get £30 or £40 a year from somebody else?" The answer at once was—"Surely, no honest man would do that." He thought there were a great number of landlords in Ireland who would agree with that gentleman. All that this Bill provided was that no landlord, good or bad, should be allowed to appropriate, without compensation, the improvements made by his tenant. He maintained that the Lords' Amendment was an unreasonable one, and he asked the House to disagree with it.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Cherry.)
SIR E. CARSONsaid he could assure the House that he was not going over the old controversial grounds at considerable length; but he wished to deal with some of the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. This was really the one substantial Amendment which was made in another place. [Nationalist cries of "No."] So far as he could see no substantial alteration had been affecting the principle of the Bill at all. What he would like to point out was that the Bill as amended by the Lords would alter the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland even as

1541
regarded existing contracts. The Amendment they proposed in the House of Commons was that existing contracts should be exempted from the Bill. The extent to which the House of Lords had gone was not to exempt existing contracts. They allowed existing contracts to be affected by the Bill, but what they said was that those contracts were only affected in relation to improvements made after the passing of the Bill. He submitted that the Bill was on the face of it an absolute justification of what the House of Lords had done as regards improvements made before the passing of the Bill. The whole Bill was taken up with safeguards which the House of Commons had thought necessary to impose with regard to claims for improvements made after the passing of the Bill. Why were these safeguards put into the Bill? Because the House thought it would be unfair that the landlord should be mulcted as regards improvements unless he had inserted safeguards taking care that in reality he was not being called upon to pay money in respect of improvements not made by the existing tenant. If all these safeguards were necessary as regards present improvements why ought the House to compel the landlord to pay for past improvements in respect of which not a single one of these safeguards could be applied, because at the time the improvements were made there was a different law? Of course it was impossible that the landlord should be able through having been given notice, or by taking any steps at the Court, or by registration, or by the preservation of evidence respecting the improvements, now to test the righteousness of the claims made or the necessity for the improvements. He contended that in the Bill itself there was justification for what the Lords had done. As the safeguards contained in the measure could not be applied to improvements made before the Bill was passed, it was obvious that those improvements could not come within its purview. The Attorney-General for Ireland had said that it was a very hard thing that a tenant who had made an improvement should be turned out at the end of the lease without being compensated. But that was not in the Bill. If a man had a lease of a house of
1542
which three years were yet to run and the remainder of the lease was bought by another man without the latter paying a single penny to his predecessor for the improvements he had made, under this Bill that man would be enabled to claim not what he gave for the three remaining years of the lease, but for every improvement that had been made on the premises for the last fifty or 100 years. He could understand the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland putting down an Amendment to make the Bill retrospective to the tenant who had made the improvements and arguing that that was just to the tenant, but he could not see that a man who had bought the remainder of the lease of a house or shop with his eyes open should be compensated for improvements which he had never made or paid for. If they were to go into the actual moral root of this matter no argument that could be set up would modify the action of the House of Lords. He could conceive of another case in which there might be justification for giving compensation by this ex post facto legislation. He thought that if this Bill passed it would be a hardship on tenants who had done much in making structural alterations to which the landlord was an assenting party; but that was not the Bill as it stood. If the landlord were to claim the improvements without compensation at the end of the lease that would be giving him a present of something for which there was no justification or moral right. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General for Ireland had gone into the old story of the Act of 1870. He thought the House had worn that subject threadbare.
MR. CHERRYsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman never answered his arguments.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he had, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had evidently not done him the courtesy of listening to his speech. He maintained that the whole of the provisions of the Act of 1870 were made in consequence of the land hunger in Ireland where tenants would take farms on almost any conditions. But where was the house hunger in Ireland? If one walked through

1543
the streets of the towns and villages of Ireland he would find that the hunger was on the part not of the tenants for houses, but of the landlords to get tenants for the houses. He admitted that in England, at all events in parts of London, they had to pay higher rents than they had any right to do, but that was because they had to live there. He pressed upon the Government that they should accept this Amendment in some form or another, and if they could not adopt it in its present shape they might do so with some modification. He did not want to prolong the discussion but he must say that he did not think the Government should reject the Lords' proposal without trying to meet the other House in some way. There ought in his opinion to be some safeguard in regard to the tenants' claims which might be in some cases made under unjustifiable circumstances.
MR. CLANCYsaid that like the right hon. Gentleman he did not desire to prolong the discussion. He did not think it could be usefully carried on, because everything that could be said upon it had been said ad nauseam, especially in the Committee upstairs. As, however, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman touched the vital principle of the Bill, as one who had had a considerable part in the preparation of the measure he hoped he might be permitted to say a word or two. He admitted that if what the right hon. Gentleman had said were the case, there would be no justification for this Bill; but he denied the statement that there was no analogy between the case of the Irish tenants for whom provision was made in 1870 and 1881 and the tenants of houses for whom provision was made in this Bill. A great part of the case of the agricultural tenants in Ireland was that they were not free agents in contracting with their landlords, and on that basis Parliament passed those Land Acts of which they had heard so much. It was on the assumption which they in Ireland knew to be absolutely well founded, that there was no freedom of contract between the tenants in the towns of Ireland and the landlords that this Bill was proposed. The right hon. Gentleman did not know perhaps
1544
quite so much as some of them did about the conditions under which the town tenants in Ireland obtained possession of their premises, but he could tell him from his own absolute knowledge, and he thought every Irish Member might make the same statement truthfully, that while there were many persons who lived in houses who were quite independent of their landlords, there were scores of business men, small traders living in other houses, who were absolutely as unable to contract freely with their landlords as the agricultural tenants were with theirs, and it was because of that notorious fact which could not be denied that this Bill was proposed and justified. One would imagine that what was proposed was something monstrous and unheard of; he had heard it described in the House of Lords as confiscation. The Bill proposed that a man who made an improvement should get compensation for it. If that were the only proposition that had to be made on the subject some exception might be taken to the provision; but what were the conditions which must be fulfilled before any compensation at all could be given? The improvement must be at the date of the claim an actually existing improvement, and must add at the date of the claim a value to the landlord's property which the landlord never possessed before. Why should not the landlord pay for a thing which he never owned before and which was left to him by his tenant on quitting? The improvement, moreover, must be suitable to the holding, and must not diminish the value of any other part of the landlord's property; and it was expressly stated that every benefit which the tenant had received in the course of his tenancy from his landlord, whether in the shape of low rent or any other benefit whatever, was to be taken into account against the tenant; and if that were not enough the Government, in order to meet objections which had been raised by they Opposition, had added such a number of other exceptions that a town tenant rending the Bill would probably come to the conclusion that the first and second clauses provided simply for a number of cases in which he would not get compensation at all. It looked rather like a Bill for not giving him compensation, so

1545
hedged round was it with restrictions and limitations, all he believed unnecessarily imported into the Bill and all tending very materially to diminish its value. He really could not understand how any human being with a sense of justice could describe it as confiscatory legislation. What went on at present was confiscation of the tenant's property by the landlord, and it was that which the Bill sought to prevent. When the right hon. Member for Dublin University said they had provided sufficient legislation in regard to future improvements, he replied that the limit of possibility had stopped them from applying the provisions relating to future improvements to past improvements. Surely the question, however, was whether any injustice was done by the actual provision applying to past improvements. If a landlord had got property which he had not erected or paid for, why should he not pay for it when he got a higher rent in consequence of it? If they would say boldly that because of his unrestrained power in the past the landlord should pocket the benefit of the tenant's improvements, he could understand it, but he could not understand these finicking arguments which really did not go to the substance of the question at all, but were simply used for the purpose of clouding the issue. The issue was plain and straight. It was whether or not a man who got an increased rent by reason of an improvement that he did not make should pay for it. If he was not to pay for it the Bill might as well be dropped, because they could not go to the people of Ireland and say they had accepted such a compromise.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he desired to say a few words, for the simple reason that he and his colleague from West Clare spoke for a district in which there were an exceptionally large number of urban areas affected by this Bill or any Bill on this subject. He thought he was speaking with the authority of many of those who had been interested in the town tenants movement when he said that the Amendments introduced into this Bill by the House of Lords, particularly the one under discussion, if retained would make the Bill entirely worthless.
1546
It was a most extraordinary state of affairs that at the beginning of a new century a Bill desired by all classes and all the tenants in Ireland and having as many Conservative as Liberal supporters should be dismissed in half an hour and flung back in their faces by gentlemen about whom he did not wish to speak in a disrespectful fashion just; then and there, but who certainly did not represent anybody. The Bill was not concerned altogether with the idea of mitigating cases of hardship in the future, but it and the agitation of which it was the outcome had resulted from hard cases which existed at the present time. It was absurd to say that they should pass an Act of Parliament which would give no relief whatever to those who were suffering grievances at the present time by reason of landlords being in possession of property which belonged to the men who made the improvements. If the Lords' Amendment were accepted a great injustice would be done to the town tenants. He was glad to see that the Government were standing by their proposal, and if this Amendment was insisted upon in another place it would intensify the feeling of the town tenants in Ireland and a better and stronger Bill would later be passed. He could not help reflecting that the same course might be followed in regard to this Bill as was followed in the case of land legislation in Ireland. Bill after Bill in that case was rejected, with the result that a measure of a far more drastic and far reaching character had finally to be adopted.
MR. BARRIEsaid, as one of those who had considerable sympathy with this measure, that, modified as the Bill had been in its passage through this House, and altered as it had been by the House of Lords, it had been materially improved. But he regretted that the House of Lords had so altered it as to insert the words, the House was now dealing with. This measure was undoubtedly called for in Ireland owing to the action of certain landlords in that country. As modified it would, in his opinion, do no harm to good landlords and only be a measure' of justice to those whose action had brought it about. He could not

1547
quite agree with those with whom he usually acted and voted in the view they had taken in the matter. He considered the Amendments made in this House with regard to the compensation clause completely safeguarded the landlords against an unreasonable award for compensation. That safeguard was further strengthened on the Report stage, and therefore he hoped it would not be necessary to divide on this question, and that they would find the House of Lords willing to delete this Amendment in order that the Bill might be placed on the Statute-book.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was sorry he could not agree with his hon. friend. This, he thought, was one of the most serious Amendments that had been introduced this session, and in view of the fact that the Chief Secretary had said that this Act might be applied to England—
MR. BRYCE: I never said so.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would not argue that now, but he thought if the right hon. Gentleman looked up the Committee stage of this Bill in the Debates he would find that he had. He took a very serious view of this matter, and was afraid he would have to go to a division upon it. It had been said that because the father of a man had taken a piece of land at £1 a year and had put a house upon it, the landlord should not raise the rent; but he submitted that in most cases the man and his father before him, who had had the use of that house and the land for thirty or forty years, had been recouped over and over again. To say that a landlord was not to raise the rent under such circumstances was against every principle of business and would put an end to all prosperity in the country. He was certain whether this Bill passed or not a more drastic measure would be proposed in the future to extend it, and under all the circumstances he trusted that the House would divide upon what he considered was one of the most serious questions ever brought before the House.
MR. GWYNNsaid that if a vote was taken upon this matter all Members representing Ireland, save about 5 per cent., would be found voting in favour of it. It was a matter which concerned, not London, but the small towns throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University might say about land hunger, there was certainly a great scarcity of houses in many parts of Ireland. He desired to associate himself with all that had been said by his hon. friends on this matter, and to say with regard to the allegation that this was a measure of confiscation that all they were confiscating was the right of the confiscator to confiscate. It had been objected that the man whom the landlord would have to compensate was very often the man who had not made the improvement but who had taken over the holding since. He could see a very natural objection on the part of anyone to pay a man for what he had not done, but the incoming tenant would in most cases have taken over the lease and paid for the improvement in the shape of a higher rent. All he could say was that if this measure was thrown out in another place all the Irish representatives would wonder whether it was possible ever to get valuable legislation for Ireland.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he desired to associate himself in a very few words with the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Derry. He had held for many years past what were called rather advanced views in connection with the question of town tenants. He had over and over again made pledges on the platform which he had always been prepared to fulfil in the House of Commons. He admitted that the clause dealt with one of the most difficult problems with which they were faced. Those opposed to the retrospective proposal forgot that the condition of affairs in Ireland was often totally different from the condition of affairs in England and Scotland. For his part he would confine the Bill to small towns, because in the large towns they could leave the natural ebb and flow of supply and demand to meet the conditions. If, as

1549
he believed, the principle of compensation was really accepted by every Irish Member he thought it should apply to the past as well as to the future. There was very much less likelihood of bogus claims being made for compensation by men who never contemplated the passing of this Act than by men who might make improvements with the deliberate object of getting compensation He thought, therefore, it was much safer to admit compensation for past improvements than for future improvements and, therefore, he supported the Government in this matter.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he was very much obliged to his hon. friend the Member for North Londonderry for the way in which he said he had to differ from some of his colleagues. He could assure his hon. friend he was equally sorry. But in every well-regulated family there were apt to be differences, and this was one of the cases in point. It would not however, make any difference to them in their relations. Having said that, he still held as strongly as ever that the retrospective action of this clause would inflict a very grave injury on landlords, and was quite uncalled for. Further than that, if it were left out, the Bill would still contain a great deal for which tenants would be very thankful, and which would very materially improve their position. He regretted very much the position the Chief Secretary had taken up with reference to this Amendment. It seemed to him there was ample room for compromise on this in conjunction with the sixth Clause. Whilst he was as strongly as ever opposed to its retrospective action, rather than lose the Bill altogether, he and he believed other Members sitting on the Opposition Benches would go some distance in allowing the Bill to be retrospective for a specified number of years. If the Chief Secretary had suggested to the House that this Amendment should be amended in the direction of allowing the Bill to be retrospective for five years, or even possibly for seven or ten years, all the reasonable objections of those hon. Members who were opposed to its retrospective action would be removed. He regretted very much the Chief Secre-
1550
tary had not taken that course. As the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government would drop the Bill if the Lords did not withdraw the Amendment the clearest and best way to come to an issue on the point was to divide on the Amendment. He thought it was highly probable the Lords would insist on the Amendment. He would be very sorry to see the Bill dropped, because it simply meant that they would have to fight the whole question over again. Of course they were quite ready to do that, but he would be sorry after three successive Bills had been introduced into the House of Commons that what he admitted were the wants of a large number of town tenants in Ireland should be still unsupplied. He thought that with a little give and take on this subject of retrospective action, the object aimed at could be perfectly well achieved under the present Bill. But apparently that was not going to happen, so that the sooner they got to a division on this clause the better.
MR. BRYCEsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had expressed his regret if the Bill should not pass. If the hon. Gentleman felt there were any danger of the Bill being lost he had a very simple way of prolonging its life, and that was to vote with the Government. He was sure the hon. Member's moral weight, coupled with that of the other Ulster Members who had spoken in support of the Government in resisting the Lords' Amendments, would have very great weight and effect in another place. The hon. Member had spoken of give and take. He (Mr. Bryce) thought they had given a great deal in the Bill, and they proposed to give more, but they could not give way on vital matters. There were only a few arguments used in the debate which he need refer to. He never thought to have to wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University should be in another place.
SIR E. CARSON: I do not wish it.
MR. BRYCEsaid he did not wish it for any reason except one, namely, that if it had been the case the Bill would have come back in a much better form. The

1551
right hon. Gentleman had stated a number of cases in which he admitted there was a case for retrospective action, and doubtless he would have called the attention of the House of Lords to those cases, so that they could have discriminated between the cases in which they thought compensation should and those in which it should not be given. He did not mean to say that there should not be some qualifications, but they had not had any put before them. He believed the cases affected would be exceedingly few. The right hon. Gentleman knew that as a rule in the small Irish towns the son lived where the father lived and improvements were made by predecessors who were not only predecessors in title but predecessors in family. The right hon. Gentleman had also regretted the fact that the Government, in making provision for the future, that there should be proper safeguards in regard to making of improvements against the landlord's wish, could not make provision for the past. But they had left it to a tribunal which was sure to take account of everything. The County Court Judge would look at all the circumstances under which the improvement was made, and he would do substantial justice between the parties. The hon. Member for the City of London had repeated the charge he had often made that the Bill would be made a precedent for England. The Bill was not in any sense a precedent for England, though he personally should have no objection to seeing some of its provisions applied to England. Any one who looked back on Irish legislation for the last thirty-five years, however, would find that the same thing had been said of every such measure. Let every pot or every tenant stand on its own bottom, and let them legislate for Ireland as circumstances required and for England as circumstancss required. Lastly, let him call attention to the very important fact which had come out in the debate as to the feeling that existed among Irish Members of all parties. They had the hon. Members for North Down and North Derry and probably other Ulster Members all supporting the Government, and they had a certain amount of qualified sympathy from the hon. Member who spoke last. These Ulster Members knew where the shoe pinched and that there was a
1552
strong feeling on the question among the tenants of Ireland. They knew more about the small Irish towns than did the hon. Member for the City of London. There never was a Bill more carefully and more scrupulously safe-guarded than this Bill, and he confidently hoped that the House if forced to take a division would send the Bill back with the full weight of its approval, because it was a measure which would remove long standing grievances in Ireland.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid it was a matter of great regret to him, when it appeared they were all agreed on the principle of this Bill that compensation should be given to the tenants for improvements, that for one provision the whole Bill should be dropped. He had no wish to say there were not hard cases in Ireland. They had heard a great deal about Lord Clanricarde, and there were other landlords whom he was not there for a moment to defend, but he did not know why a multitude of landlords should be made to suffer an injustice because a few landlords did not study their tenants and the community. He sincerely hoped the House of Lords would insist upon this Amendment. They did not regard the House of Lords as a legislative body in the same sense as the House of Commons. They looked upon the Upper Chamber more as a body to check hasty legislation.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is an occasion for giving advice to the House of Lords.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHhoped the spirit of compromise which the Chief Secretary had shown would enable him to reconsider the position he had taken up.
MR. BRYCE: I do not see that any compromise is possible.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he regretted when they were all agreed that the tenant should be paid for improvements that the other benefits should be lost for the sake of this one object.
MR. VERNEYsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had stated that they

1553
had no right to do a wrong thing to meet one or two hard cases. In his opinion this Bill did the right thing to meet many hard cases. The measure ought to be retrospective because it had to deal with accumulative acts of injustice. If the Bill was not made retrospective it would not touch the accumulated injustices. He wished to associate himself with those who had spoken against the Lords' Amendment, and he could assure the Irish representatives that there was a vast amount of sympathy with this measure amongst the English Members. He did not deny that there were objectionable landlords in Ireland, but what astonished him was that the best landlords should associate themselves with acts which pertained only to the Worst landlords.
MR. SLOANcongratulated the hon. Member for South Antrim on the consistent attitude he had taken up during the whole course of this Bill. No one who had listened to his speeches could help admiring his consistency. The hon. Member had stated that he represented the landlords. He certainly did not represent the people of the North of Ireland who were suffering from what this Bill would relieve them of. There were exceptions to the rule he was aware, but good landlords did not want this Amendment and bad landlords ought not to have it. For that reason be thought the Chief Secretary had
taken the proper course and those who differed with hon. Members below the gangway, both politically and religiously, were in complete agreement on this question. In his constituency of South Belfast 34,000 tenants would benefit under this clause, and he denied the statement of the hon. Member for North Belfast that it was not required. Whether or not the House of Lords accepted the attitude of the Commons on this question he was prepared to say that from his experience of the situation in the North of Ireland the people were quite prepared to enter into the fight with more energy and eagerness than they did before in order to have the Bill as it ought to be. When legislation of this kind was brought forward in Ireland and supported by all representatives with very few exceptions it was very hard that hon. Gentlemen with such large political experience as the hon. Member for the City of London should get up and oppose them. They in Ireland believed this was a good Bill, and they had the best reason to know. He heartily endorsed the attitude of the Government and associated himself with the Irish representatives in their refusal to accept this particular Amendment which would make the Bill null and void.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 265; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 501.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

Cheetham, John Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Aldan, Percy

Bilson, Alfred

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Clancy, John Joseph

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Boland, John

Clarke, C. Goddard

Ambrose, Robert

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cleland, J. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Bramsdon, T. A.

Clough, William

Astbury, John Meir

Branch, James

Clynes, J. R.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brigg, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Brodie, H. C.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Stopford

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Cooper, G. J.

Barnard, E. B.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

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

Barnes, G. N.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Cory, Clifford John

Beauchamp, E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Cbas.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

Byles, William Pollard

Cowan, W. H.

Bell, Richard

Cameron, Robert

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Bellairs, Garylon

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Cremer, William Randal

Been, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Crombie, John William

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

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Crosfield, A. H.

Crossley, William J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

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

Lough, Thomas

Runciman, Walter

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lundon, W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton underLyne)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lynch, H. B.

Sears, J. E.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Seaverns, J. H.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Seddon, J.

Elibank, Master of

M'Arthur, William

Selly, Major J. B.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Crae, George

Shackleton, David James

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Kean, John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Ferens, T. R.

M'Killop, W.

Sheehy, David

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kicking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Fullerton, Hugh

Mallet, Charles E.

Snowden, P.

Gilhooly, James

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Soares, Ernest J.

Gill, A. H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Spicer, Sir Albert

Ginnell, L.

Marnham, F. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Massie, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Glover, Thomas

Meagher, Michael

Strachey, Sir Edward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Micklem, Nathaniel

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Gooch, George Peabody

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, E. S.

Sullivan, Donal

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Summerbell, T.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morse, L. L.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hall, Frederick

Murphy, John

Thorne, William

Halpin, J.

Napier, T. B.

Tomkinson, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r

Toulmin, George

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nolan, Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ure, Alexander

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Verney, F. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wadsworth, J.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wallace, Robert

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Walsh, Stephen

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Grady, J.

Walters, John Tudor

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Malley, William

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Mara, James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Hibart, Sir Robert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wardle, George J.

Hodge, John

Paul, Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hogan, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hooper, A. G.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Waterlow, D. S.

Horniman, Emslie John

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

Watt, H. Anderson

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hudson, Walter

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, George (Norfolk)

Idris, T. H. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jardine, Sir J.

Reddy, M.

Whitehead, Rowland

Jenkins, S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Whitley, J. H. (Haliax)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Rees, J. D.

Williamson, A.

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

Kearley, Hudson, E.

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

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Richardson, A.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Tellers for the Ayes.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robertson. Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Lambert, George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robinson, S.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, E. Hildred

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

1556

1557

Chance, Frederick William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Liddell, Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Valentia, Viscount

Pell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tellers for the Noes—Viscount Castlereagh and Sir Frederick Banbury.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendment, "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words, 'Provided always that the sum to be awarded as compensation for any improvement shall in no case exceed the capitalised value of such addition to the letting value of such holding as the Court shall determine to be the direct result of such improvement,'" read a second time.
MR. BRYCE,in moving that the House agree with the said Amendment, stated that it really carried oat the intention of the Government. He did not think it made any difference to the Bill beyond rendering more explicit what was in the Bill before.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth, agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. CLANCYsaid he desired to protest against the Amendment on the ground that it was of a limiting and restricting character. He did not think it worth while to take a division upon it.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'consideration' to insert the words, 'the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of the improvement and," read a second time.
MR. CHERRYsaid the Government agreed to this Amendment very reluctantly. They were most unwilling to accept it. They thought it was unnecessary because the landlord was only asked to pay the value of the improvement at the time that he got it, and the Government thought it was not just that the time
1558
during which the tenant had enjoyed the improvement should be twice taken into account. In the first place, it was taken into account in reducing the value of the improvement, and, in the second place, further deduction might be made in respect of the period of time during which the tenant had had the enjoyment of the improvement. If an improvement was worth £500 when it was originally made, and after twenty years it had decreased in value by £200, the Government's view was that the landlord should have to pay £300. The Lords' Amendment had directed the Court to take into account, not only the diminished value of the improvement, but also the time during which the tenant had enjoyed it. They wished, however, to make every concession they could in order to get the Bill passed. They were adhering to the vital points, and they were willing to come to an arrangement on the others.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Cherry.)
MR. CLANCYsaid he entirely disgreed with the action of the Government in this matter. The Amendment diminished the value of the clause, and he did not think any defence could be made of it. It was not only unnecessary, but absolutely unjust. The time during which the improvements had existed would have to be taken into consideration when the Court came to inquire into their age and condition. In addition to that it was now proposed by the Government, in conjunction with the House of Lords, that the time during which the tenant had enjoyed his own property should also to taken into account against him. In his opinion that

1559
meant that the consideration of time would be taken into account twice over. A similar provision was actually inserted in the Land Act of 1870, and it was a remarkable fact that in 1896 the Unionist Government repealed it. It was no longer the law in Ireland when rent was being fixed that the time during which a man had enjoyed his own property should be taken into consideration. The idea of making a man pay for what was his own seemed to him the most absurd thing that could be imagined. In pursuance of the policy which his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford had announced the Nationalist Members protested in the Strongest possible manner against the Amendment, but they did not intend to divide the House upon it.
MR. BYLESexpressed agreement with the observations of his hon. friend who had just spoken. He did so as an English Member, who hoped that this Bill would be a precedent for English legislation on the same lines. The only reason given by the Attorney-General for Ireland in asking the House to agree to the Amendment was that the Government wanted to agree as far as possible With the Lords' Amendments. He himself wished to disagree with as many as possible of the Lords' Amendments on this and all other Bills. He would support his hon. friend if he divided the House in opposing the Amendment.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he desired to enforce the protest of his hon. friend against the acceptance of this Amendment. He did not think any protest could be too strong against the surrender in this matter on the part of the Government. He was surprised that the Attorney-General for Ireland had been a party to it.
MR. CHERRY: I did not say that I approved of the Amendment. I entirely disapprove of it. I asked the House to agree to the Amendment only as a Concession to the Lords.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid that the people of Ireland must be subjected to injustice in order that concessions might
1560
be made to those who sat in another place. That was a wrong principle in legislation. The vicious principle contained in the decision in the case of Adams v. Dunseath had worked evil since 1881. The principle had been denounced by those who were party to the judgment, but that very principle was applied in this Amendment. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had stated tint this Bill would be made the basis of further legislation. He might inform the hon. Member that when the Land Act of 1881 was introduced the Irish Members declared that it was insufficient. All the Land Acts which had been passed since then were due to the fact that the representations of the Irish Members were entirely disregarded by this House. Now the House was asked to follow that bad example. The value of house property in the towns and villages of Ireland was largely due to the industry and spirit of the occupiers, but he deplored the fact there had not been that extension of buildings which could have been desired. That was the reason why these tenants ought to be compensated and the Bill ought to be made retrospective. He repeated the protest of his hon. friend and thought that the surrender of the Government on the point could not be condemned too strongly.
MR. JOHN REDMONDthought there was no denying the fact that the House was engaged in a somewhat ridiculous proceeding with regard to this Amendment. The Government had declared that they entirely disapproved of the Amendment and no doubt the majority of the House disapproved of it, and yet they were pressed to agree to it. That was a ridiculous proceeding from one point of view. At the same time the Government had taken up the position. The Chief Secretary while conceding these Amendments to the Lords had expressed the sanguine hope that the Government would be able to induce them to give way on two important points. He was not able to share the hopes of the Chief Secretary, for he did not believe the Lords would give way. In his opinion, when the Bill went back to the Lords, they would again reject these two important points respecting retrospective action and compensation for disturbance.

1561
He would say, however, that if that were done, neither the Government nor the Irish Party nor the House of Commons would be committed to these particular Amendments. They would be perfectly free to face these points in the next measure brought before Parliament, and the Government would, on their own declaration, be bound in the future to stand by what they thought right. That being so, as a mere question of tactics he had no objection to the course suggested by the Government. But it must be on the clear understanding that he and his Party had registered their entire disapproval of the Lords' Amendments. The House of Commons was consenting to pay blackmail, but if it were found that that was no use, they would be exempt in future from any responsibility for the principle of this and other Amendments. He wished the Government clearly to understand that he and his friends expected them to stand by the important points in the House of Lords and not to give way any further in the smallest degree. They had gone to the fullest length they could, and he should regard it as a breach of faith if the Government in the House of Lords make any further concessions whatever.
MR. BRYCEsaid that most assuredly the Government were not committed to any approval of this Amendment. On the contrary they wholly objected to it. They thought it entirely wrong, and if there was any legislation next year on this question they would not be committed to accept the Amendment or the principle of it. But they continued to hope that the House of Lords would listen to words of reason and justice on this matter, and he wanted to give them a last chance to reconsider their position.
Lords' Amendments, "In page 2, lines 6 and 7, leave out the words 'made either before or after the passing of this Act'; in lines 13 and, 14 leave out the words 'whether before or after the passing of this Act'; and lines 17 and 18 leave out the words 'whether before or after the passing of this Act,'" read a second time.
MR. BRYCEproposed that the House should disagree to these three Amendments as they were all consequential on the rejection by the House of the first Amendment.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 2, line 19, after the word 'consideration,' to insert the words 'including a building lease,'" read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 2, lines 20 to 23, to leave out sub-section (5)," read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid he might explain to the House that this Amendment was agreed to in this House because at that time they had made the clause retrospective in its action. But after the action of the Lords in regard to that matter they must disagree now with the Lords' Amendment.
Consequential Lords' Amendments to the Amendment, in page 2, line 27, disagreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'or' and insert the word 'and," the next Amendment, read a second time, and agreed to.
Consequential Lords' Amendments to the Amendment, in page 3, line 13, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 3, line 13, to leave out the words 'made after the passing of this Act," the next Amendment, read a second time, and disagreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 4, line 7, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word 'in' in line 16, and insert the words '(1) Where the landlord without good and sufficient cause, terminates or refuses to grant a renewal of the tenancy, or it is proved that an increase

1563
of rent id demanded from the tenant as the result of improvements which have been effected at the cost of such tenant, and for which he has not, either directly or indirectly, received an equivalent from the landlord, and such demand results in the tenant quitting the holding, the tenant upon quitting the holding shall, in addition to the compensation (if any) to which he may be entitled in respect of improvements, and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled to compensation for the loss of goodwill and the expense which, by reason of his quitting the holding, he sustains or incurs upon or in connection with the removal of his goods, implements, produce, or stock: Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed three years rent of the holding," read a second time.
MR. CHERRYmoved that the House agree with the Lords' Amendment except in regard to the last provision, viz., "provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed three years rent of the holding." He explained that in the Bill as originally introduced the clause provided for compensation for disturbance on a scale based upon the tenant's rent. The Government on the Second Reading expressed approval of that clause, but modified it so as to make the compensation payable for capricious or unjust disturbance. On his Motion a clause was introduced in Committee giving compensation in all cases where the landlord unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause disturbed or refused to grant a renewal of the tenancy, but it was then considered unwise to lay down any rule whereby the amount of the compensation should be fixed. The Government came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to do so. It was absolutely impossible to think of any principle that would apply to all cases. It was therefore left to the discretion of the Court that had to adjudicate the claim to say in any particular circumstances what amount the tenant ought to receive. That was the effect of the clause when it left the House of Commons. The House of Lords rejected that clause, however, and inserted a new clause. Although the Government preferred their own
1564
clause they were anxious to concede to the Lords as much as possible so long as the vital principles of the Bill were preserved. Therefore they agreed to the Amendment with the omission he had indicated. The rent of the holding could in, no way be the measure of the amount of compensation to be paid. The rent might be high and the compensation low and vice versa. A house might be used for business purposes and be rented at £100, and in the event of the landlord turning the tenant out that tenant might be able to get suitable premises quite close and thus his business be uninjured. In that case the only claim he could justly make would be for the cost of the removal. Obviously three times the rent, viz., £300, would be an entirely excessive amount. On the other hand a plot of land might be rented at £1 and the tenant might put up a valuable erection on that plot and establish a business. If the landlord turned him out nobody could say that three times the rent, or £3, would be the measure of the compensation that should be paid the tenant. The business might have been bringing in four or five hundred pounds a year, which might all be lost through the removal. It was quite obvious that the measure of compensation for disturbance must be assessed on the value of the good-will as well as on other considerations. Yet in the case he had put, under the clause as amended by the other House the total amount of compensation would be £3. It was obvious that the measure of compensation ought to be the value of the improvement, and it ought to be left to the Court to determine the amount.
Amendment proposed to the Lords' Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed three year rent of the holding."—(Mr. Cherry.)
Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords' Amendment," put, and negatived.
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, "In page 4, to leave out lines 17, 18 and 19 and insert "any

1565
matter under this section," read a second time, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment "in page 4, line 23, to leave out 'partly for business purposes,' and insert '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 i the passing of this Act where the rent of the holding is under one hundred pounds per annum,"read a second time.
MR. CHERRYmoved that the House should agree with the Lords in the Amendment. Although it looked rather formidable on the Paper, its only effect was to exclude from the operation of the Bill leases made for more than thirty-one years. The Government thought that that was a reasonable proposal.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Cherry.)
MR. CLANCYsaid this was another of those Amendments which had an unduly restrictive effect.
Lords Amendment, "in page 5, line 13, to leave out 'except where otherwise expressly provided,"read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment was a drafting one, and he thought they should agree to it.
Lords Amendments, "in page 5, line 26, after the word 'Act' to insert the words '(3) Any rules under this section shall be made after consultation with, or notice of consultation sent to, the President of the Incorporated Law-Society of Ireland"; "in lines 27 to 32, to leave out
1566
sub-section (3)"; read a second time and agreed to.
Lords Amendment'—
"In page 5, after Clause 10 insert Clause A. "A. (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 of a judge of the High Court and to the Court of Appeal, the appeals shall be heard togeter 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,"—read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid that this Amendment might involve some questions of difficulty, but there was something to be said for it and he suggested that they should agree with it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid they were placed in a very peculiar position by this proposal. It was thought by some of his hon. friends that the appeal should be to a judge of Assize, but on consideration, it was considered better to have the appeals to the Court of Appeal, and that view was adopted by the Government. Even on those Benches however, there was difference of opinion, as some thought the tribunal should be the Court of Appeal, and the others thought the best tribunal was the judge of Assize. This proposal of the House of Lords was to provide an alternative proposal, and gave an appeal either to one or the other. He did not under those circumstances see how they could get out of the double appeal. He thought the House of Lords would have done better to have left the provision as they had settled it.
Lords Amendment, "in page 6, after Clause 11, to insert Clauses B, C, and D:—B. Capital money arising under the Settled Land Act, 1882, may be applied

1567
in payment of any moneys expended and costs incurred by a landlord under, or in pursuance of this Act in or about the execution of any improvement, as for an improvement authorised by the said Settled Land Act; and such money may also be applied in discharge of any charge created on a holding under or in pursuance of this Act in respect of any such improvement as aforesaid, as in discharge of an in cumbrance authorised by the said Settled Land Act to be discharged out of such capital money. C. Where the landlord is a person entitled to receive the rents and profits of any holding as trustee, or in any character otherwise than for his own benefit, the amount due from such landlord in respect of compensation under this Act shall be charged and recovered as follows, and not otherwise (that is to say)—(1) The amount so due shall not be recoverable personally against such landlord, nor shall he be under any liability to pay such amount, but the same shall be a charge on and recoverable against the holding only; (2) Such landlord shall, either before or after having paid to the tenant the amount due to him, be entitled to obtain from the County Court a charge on the holding to the amount of the sum required to be paid or which has been paid, as the case may be, to the tenant. (3) If such landlord neglect, or fail within one month after the tenant has quited his holding, to pay to the tenant the amount due to him, then after the expiration of such one month the tenant shall be entitled to obtain from the County Court in favour of himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, a charge on the holding to the amount of the sum due to him, and of all costs properly incurred by him in obtaining the charge or in raising the amount due there under. (4) The Court shall, on proof of the tenant's title to have a charge made in his favour, make an order charging the holding with payment of the amount of the charge, including costs, in like manner and form as in case of a charge which a landlord is entitled to obtain. D. Any company now or hereafter incorporated by Parliament and having power to advance money for the improvement of land, may take an assignment of any charge made by a County Court under the provisions of this Act, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between such com-
1568
pany and the person entitled to such charge; and such company may assign any charge so acquired by them to any person or persons whomsoever",—read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid that this clause merely contained the machinery to enable some expenditure which might arise under the Act to be met. It did not, however, affect any principle, and he moved that they should agree with the Lords.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. CLANCYsaid it was difficult to estimate the effect of a clause like this on reading it for the first time. But he had no concern with it as it affected the landlords' interests, and it was for the landlords to take care of themselves. He would like to ask whether he was right in thinking that the provision was for the recovery of compensation only in the case of a landlord who was a trustee or a limited owner.
MR. CHERRYsaid he understood that if a landlord was a trustee or a limited owner, the tenant was entitled to recover compensation in the same way as if he were a freeholder. It really was to assist the tenant.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if the clause was merely to provide how the money was to be paid in the case of settled estates and did not concern the interest of the tenants.
MR. CHERRY: That is so.
Lords Amendment, "In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'clubs for social and athletic purposes"; read a second time.
MR. BRYCEsaid he regretted the Amendment, but he supposed they must agree.
Lords Amendment, "In page 6, line 5, after the word 'building,' to insert the words, 'situate in urban districts, towns, or villages and"; read a second time.
MR. CHERRYmoved that the House should agree with the Lords in this Amendment, but said he did so unwillingly, as he had done in previous cases. The Amendment would, however, affect but a small number of cases. If a blacksmith or other person put up a small shop away from a town or village he was excluded. As the cases were very few in number, however, they thought it best to accept the Amendment. As originally moved it applied the Act only to cities and towns, but they endeavoured in the Lords to extend it by including villages.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—(Mr. Cherry.)
MR. CLANCYthought the clause was open to objection from every point of view, especially in view of the fact that it would lead to perpetual litigation upon the question of what was a town and what was a village. The cases which were excluded seemed to him very hard ones indeed.
MR. BRYCEsaid that if it was any satisfaction to the hon. and learned Member, he regretted the Amendment as much as he did, but he was afraid they were under the hard necessity of accepting it. He believed, however, that there were very few collections of houses which would be excluded. In a book which he had a village was described as a collection of houses in a rural district sufficient to constitute a hamlet, and thus hamlet was made equivalent to a village. Therefore very few houses would be sufficient to constitute a village, and any injustice which would be done would not be very large. He had no alternative, however, but to accept the Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee be appointed to draw
1570
up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."—(Mr. Bryce.)
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid before this Bill left the House he desired to say a few words upon it. They had realised that afternoon that they had been occupying a somewhat ridiculous position. They had reserved their opinion upon a number of these points in order to facilitate the action of the Chief Secretary in attempting to persuade the House of Lords to reconsider some of their Amendments. He and his hon. friends were now going away to Ireland, and he wished the Government clearly to understand that they expected them to insist upon these important points in the House of Lords and not to give way further, even in the smallest particular. They had gone as far as they could, and he should regard it as a breach of faith if the right hon. Gentleman made any further concession to the House of Lords.
Committee nominated of Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Clancy, Mr. John O'Connor, and Mr. Whiteley.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Bryce.)
Motion put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 10:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 8, line 35, after the word 'omission,' to insert the words 'or decision."—(Mr. Marnham.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:—
Amendments proposed—
"In page 9, line 5, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'under this Act."
"In page 9, line 8, after the word 'brokers,' to insert the words, 'or other persons."—(Sir John Walton.)
"In page 9, line 10, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'the interests of the trust, but subject to this shall, whenever practicable, take into consideration."—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 19, after the word 'do' to insert the words, 'Provided that nothing in this Act, or in any rule made under this Act, shall confer upon any person not otherwise entitled thereto any right to appear, or act, or be heard in or before any Court or tribunal on behalf or instead of the public trustee, or to do any other act whatsoever on behalf or on the instructions of the public trustee which could otherwise only be lawfully done by a barrister or a duly certificated solicitor."—(Mr. Marnham.)
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid this clause was in the Bill as originally drafted, and he did not know why it was omitted. He had given the best consideration he could to it, and he accepted the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. BERTRAMsaid he desired in line 20 to omit all the words from "where" down to the word "but" in line 24 and to substitute other words. He thought the clause as it stood was meaningless. His object was to prevent the Court when granting administration from insisting on a trustee entering into a bond or providing sureties. He moved to insert "no bond, surety or other security shall be required from the public trustee by the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice or any district registry as a condition of any grant of administration to him, but he shall be subject to the same liabilities as a person who had entered into such bond, etc." He did not desire to press the Amendment, but he thought it was necessary to make clear the meaning of the clause.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that if his hon. friend would withdraw the Amendment he would consider the matter between this and Report. At present he thought the suggested words would be an improvement to the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. BERTRAMsaid his next Amendment was to leave out in sub-section (5) from the word "and" to the end of the sub-section. It appeared to him very desirable in the case of a public trustee to guard against fraud in his own office. He would be compelled to delegate his powers to a very great extent, and the chief protection upon which he could rely was that given by the provision of the Forged Transfers Act, which provided that before any deed of transfer could be registered notice in writing must be given to the holder of the stock at his registered address. In the case of a public trustee he ought to receive such notice at his private address, and he would know of any fraud that was being perpetrated in his own office. Otherwise if he had a fraudulent clerk and the notice was sent to his official address, the person who forged the transfer would have an opportunity of opening the letter, and the fraud might not come to the knowledge of the public trustee until too late. He moved.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 27, to leave out from the word 'and,' to the end of the sub-section."—(Mr. Bertram.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would consider the matter before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 30, at end to add the words, 'and no person dealing with the public trustee either alone or jointly with any other trustee or person on any transfer of mortgage or reconveyance or other dealing with mortgaged property shall be affected with notice of a trust."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONthought there was a point in the Amendment which ought to be provided for, but suggested that the hon. Gentleman should accept the words he proposed to meet the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 30, at end, to add the words, 'and in dealing with property the fact that the persons or one of the persons dealt with is a public trustee shall not of itself constitute notice of a trust."—(Sir John Walton.)
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:—
MR. HARMOOD-BANNEEmoved an Amendment to provide a more rapid and serviceable way of dealing with the judicial trustee. He said he was glad that the Government were amending the Judicial Trustee Act, 1896, which had not been used to the extent it ought to be. If it had he did not think they would have needed this Bill. However, the Government were proposing to improve it by this clause, and he was now suggesting a further improvement. He wished to add the words "or such person as may be nominated by such person or persons to act as judicial trustee on their behalf, unless the Court otherwise order." Under the present Judicial Trustee Act there was power to apply to the Court for the appointment of a judicial trustee but his Amendment would enable the proper persons at once to make the appointment without the delay consequent on application to the Court, and it provided against any improper action by the words "unless the Court otherwise order." Besides being a more rapid and serviceable method of dealing with the judicial trustee it would make the Act more appreciated.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 10, after the word 'granted,' to insert the words, 'or such person
1574
as may be nominated by such person or persons to act as judicial trustee on their behalf unless the Court otherwise order."—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Amendment had substantial ground to recommend it. In certain cases no doubt it would be desirable that the executors or administrators who might have been appointed and were unwilling to act should have a voice in the selection of the person into whose hands they were prepared to entrust the management of the estate, and who might be constituted a judicial trustee under the Act of 1896. The difficulty was that the Amendment threw the burden of objection upon the beneficiary, whereas as the matter stood now in the ordinary case the person nominated would apply to the Court to constitute him a judicial trustee. Although there was something to be said for the hon. Member's suggestion he thought on the whole it would be unwise to accept the Amendment, as it would interfere with the machinery of the Judicial Trustee Act.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had an Amendment later on to leave out the whole of this section, because it was a very good illustration of the difficulty in an Act like this of dealing with the complicated position set up in the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896. The proper way to amend the Act was by a Bill exclusively devoted to the purpose. The Amendment under discussion was not on the Paper, and it was exceedingly difficult to understand it. From what he could see he thought it would be likely to get out of some of the difficulties which at present hampered the public in availing themselves of the facilities of the Judicial Trustee Act, 1896, but without the words before him it was difficult to form a conclusive opinion.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 18, to leave out sub-section (3)."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed) "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved the rejection of Clause 13 for the reason he had already given, namely, that the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896 required amending and ought to be dealt with separately. Any lawyer who had had experience of that Act and its application or who had studied the cases which had gone to the Court of Appeal upon its construction would at once see the great complication and difficulty which was likely to arise. If the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896 was to be amended at all it was one of those technical and difficult matters which ought to be dealt with in a separate Bill. Section 13 of this Bill was a wholly inadequate attempt to deal with the position which had arisen under that Act. He appealed to the Attorney-General to leave out the clause. The Bill was to establish a public trustee, but this particular clause had nothing to do with the public trustee, and was merely an attempt to patch up and improve the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896. That Act had been before the Court, and it had been held that it was an injudicious thing to appoint a judicial trustee with an ordinary trustee. There was a general opinion that the Act was not what it ought to be, and in a number of cases the appointment of judicial trustees had been refused. Any attempt to patchwork the Judicial Trustee Act in this way wag bound to create further complication and confusion. Those who, having gone into the question closely, were in a position to make suggestions to amend the Act, could not do so upon a proposition of this kind, and he hoped therefore that the Government would see their way to leave the clause out altogether.
MR. MICKLEM,in supporting the omission of the clause, said it was manifest that whoever framed this particular clause was not very well acquainted with the practice of the Chancery and the Probate divisions of the High Court. The two Courts seemed to have been hopelessly mixed up in the drafting, and an attempt
1576
was being made to extend the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896 to the Probate Court. The Judges had almost unanimously refused to enforce the Judicial Trustee Act, and if the Government wished to amend that Act it should be done by a separate Bill.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he found considerable difficulty in dealing with this clause. Sub-section (3) had already been struck out, and he had come to the conclusion that this was a foreign element in the Bill. He did not think the Bill in its original scope intended to deal with the Judicial Trustee Act, nor was he of opinion that this clause effected such a reform in that Act as was necessary to make it an effective working measure. He did not think this clause had been inappropriately described as a piece of patchwork. Any attempt to deal with the Judicial Trustee Act should form a separate measure. It was obvious that the clause as it stood would be of very little use and would need a considerable amount of amending to make it operative. He thought therefore that the section had better be left out. For these reasons he accepted the Amendment,
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid if this clause had remained it would have been necessary to put down four or five very difficult and complicated Amendments on Report.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause 14:—
Amendment agreed to.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERmoved an Amendment providing for the regulation of the fees to be charged under the Act. He thought it was very important that the public should know that there was a regulation of fees by a public authority. He was a member of a profession which would probably benefit by the Act, and he did not wish it to go forth to the public that the fees to be charged were not liable to taxation as any other fees of solicitors and accountants were.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 26, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words, 'and the regulations as to fees to be taken under this Act."—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the suggestion of the hon. Member was a valuable one, and he would accept it. But he thought the proper place to insert the provision was in sub-section (5), and when they came to it he would ask the Committee to insert words providing that the remuneration of the auditor and the other expenses of the investigation and audit "shall be such as are prescribed by rules under this Act."
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONmoved an Amendment to the effect that the condition and account of every trust should be investigated and audited once a year. The object of the Amendment was to carry out more effectively the intention with which the Bill was framed, that intention, to quote the words of the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, being to prevent the breaches of trust which had been constantly occurring. Some attempts had been made somewhat to minimise 'the evil which this Bill was intended to remedy. The Report of the Committee which had inquired into the subject could not be accepted as conclusive. That Committee had before, them only such breaches of trust as came before the public, but, as a matter of fact, for every breach of trust which came before the public, there were ten suffered in silence. So far as trusts to be created in future were dealt with by the public trustee, he agreed that there would be absolute security for the trust funds. But there were at the present moment thousands of trusts which would continue to be administered by private trustees just as before. Further, there would be trusts created in future with private trustees, and this
1578
Bill provided no proper protection for the trust funds of estates where the public trustee was not, and could not, be appointed. Beneficiaries had had the right for about a hundred years to get an account, and according to the judgment of the Court in 1819 in the case of Pearce v. Green it was the first duty "of every trustee, receiver, or executor, to be constantly ready with his account." The trouble which had arisen in these matters was because the beneficiaries would not avail themselves of the rights they had. This clause would perpetuate the evil. If beneficiaries had exercised their right to ask the trustees for an account, there would not have been one-tenth of the defalcations which had occurred. There were in many cases social circumstances which made beneficiaries hesitate to avail themselves of the rights which they possessed. If they had not availed themselves of the right in the past, what reason was there to believe that they would demand an investigation in future? Hon. Members knew that they would not, and Parliament ought to protect them. Beneficiaries were generally widows and children; a widow was not accustomed to business, and if the trustee was her own brother, brother-in-law, uncle, or father-in-law, she would not take the risk of offending him by asking for an account. It this Amendment were adopted, there would be no trouble at all, because there would be no occasion for any feeling between the parties. A widow in the circumstances which he had described would be able to see the accounts and be satisfied without going to the trustee. Commercial companies of every kind, friendly societies, trades unions, and clubs, had periodical audits of their accounts, and why should not a pivate trustee render an account in the way proposed? One alleged ground of objection was the expense in the case of small estates. In the case of an estate with an income of £50 the number of securities to be examined and entries to be inspected would not take more than half an hour of the time of a man accustomed to business. The expense of a compulsory audit might amount to half a guinea, and need not be more than one per cent. of the income of the trust. No estate was so poor that the beneficiaries could not get some friend

1579
to do this necessary work, or afford an audit paid for on the scale of one per cent. The next objection to his Amendment was that private trustees would never stand it. His answer to that was that they would be glad to do it and very many did it now. In Scotland it it was almost a universal practice, and he was glad to see that it was becoming more and more the practice in England. Every man who became a trustee would obtain great comfort and protection from his proposal. Many trustees were plagued and pestered by life-renters to commit some little breach of trust so that they might obtain a little more income out of the trust funds, and the trustee, who might be a very good natured man, out of the goodness of his heart would not refuse, but grant it. But if the trustee had an auditor behind him he would say to the life-renter who made the application that he could not do it, and that answer would be accepted without further remark. The only man that he could understand who would object to his Amendment was really the honest trustee who had hopelessly mixed up the trust funds with his own affairs and got the whole into a muddle. But he must have to give an account of the trust funds some day, and why should he put it off? If he were compelled by an annual audit to submit the accounts of the trust funds to an auditor he would be all the happier and more comfortable. They were bound to come to an official audit some time. It appeared extraordinary to him that this kind of legislation, which corresponded to the commonsense view of the public, was so long delayed in Parliament, For instance, the great Companies Act of 1862 made no provision for an auditor. Then came the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank in in 1879, when a provision was made in an Act of Parliament for a bank audit. Then after thirty-eight years there was the Act of 1900 which directed that every limited liability company must have an auditor. But to this day there was not a single obligation on any company to put a balance sheet before the general meeting of the company, although it was the usual thing to do so. That showed that the common sense of the public had outrun legislation. He was assured that if his Amendment were adopted, men who accepted the position of trustees would
1580
find themselves easier in mind and more willing to act. He knew that there were some good-natured friends who said that because he was connected with the profession which might incidentally be affected, in moving this Amendment he had an axe to grind—[Cries of "No, no."]—but he could assert that he would not move a step across the House for all the fees that were likely to come to him as the result of his Amendment if carried. It was only from his intimate experience of thirty years that he had seen the necessity for this legislation. He appealed to the House and the Government to take courage in both hands and to adopt the Amendment which would bring legislation to a level with common sense and public opinion, and ensure that trust funds would be secured in a way they had never been before.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 30, after the word 'audited' to insert the words 'once a year."(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
MR. HILLSthought the Amendment would do a great deal of harm because it went much too far. These trusts were of all kinds. They might be trusts of land or of stocks, and he did not think a rigid system of this kind ought to be applied to all trusts. Certain trusts accounts should be audited every year or oftener, but in other cases a yearly audit would be much too frequent. He thought the majority of large trusts had an annual audit already, and this section gave a large power to the beneficiary who thought things were not going as they ought to do, by enabling him through very easy and simple machinery to get an audit. He thought that in an experimental Bill this section went far enough. In the future they might come to some kind of compulsory audit, but if they persisted in inserting this Amendment now he thought they would wreck the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he differed with very great reluctance from his hon. friend. After a quarter of a century's experience of trusts, large and small, he had come to, the conclusion that a compulsory annual audit was required. Unfortunately a large number of cases of frauds

1581
in connection with trusts had come before the public of late, but there was a still larger number which had never seen the light of day. Those frauds had generally arisen where the trustees had the trust monies in their hands for years, where no accounts were kept, and where the trustees were tempted to use the trust funds for the purposes of speculation or for their own business. In such cases, matters went from bad to worse, of course. He believed that it would be the greatest boon to trustees in this country, of whom there were so many, to have the safeguard of an annual audit of their trust accounts. That would mean that accounts would have to be kept properly, both of the principal and of the income; secondly, that the accounts would be kept up to date; and thirdly, that the beneficiaries would be able to get a statement once a year at any rate, showing what the trust estate consisted of. If this Amendment were adopted, it seemed to him that it would enable an ordinary man to accept a trusteeship when asked by a friend to do so. The clause simply put into language the rights that beneficiaries already had. Every beneficiary to-day had aright to apply and insist upon the accounts being audited by the registrar of the Court. The next thing that struck him about this clause was that instead of making it compulsory to audit the accounts, the applicant had to apply to the Court to order that the accounts should be audited. He felt bound to say that there was hardly a trust in England in regard to which, if the beneficiary had to apply to the Court for an audit, it would not lead to a rupture of the pleasant relations which had hitherto existed between the trustee and the beneficiary. He hoped therefore that the Government would see their way to adopt the Amendment, and by so doing effect the greatest reform in the management of trusts that had ever been made. It would reduce to a minimum the chances of thieving. It would enable beneficiaries without offending their trustees to see exactly how they stood in regard to the trustee funds; in fact there was hardly a point of view in regard to the management of trusts, whether it was that of the beneficiary, the trustee, or the professional
1582
man interested, from which this Amendment would not be an improvement. The only objection he had heard to the Amendment was the expense. The trouble was nothing, because there ought to be no trouble at all. The accounts ought to be properly kept so that they could be audited. As to the expense, if the Committee looked at the words of the section itself they would find that there was power to get this audit done in the event of its not being done by the public trustee or some official appointed by him, and he supposed that the Government were going to indicate some maximum amount. He had not the slightest doubt whatever, speaking from a very extensive experience in this matter, that the Amendment would do immense good, and there was not a single practical ground of objection against its acceptance.
SIR E. CARSONhoped the Attorney-General would not accept the Amendment, because if he did it would imperil the Bill. How many trusts to which this Bill applied were there in this country? Nobody knew. If they were going to set up machinery for a compulsory audit they must also set up machinery for in some way or other registering all existing trusts and every trust which came into existence in the future. After that would come the compulsory audit, and how many auditors did they think they would want? They would have to set up hundreds of thousands of auditors all over the country. The truth was they were raising an entirely new question—a question quite alien to this Bill. He was not sorry that the question had been raised, however, because an hon. Gentleman had remarked that if a beneficiary asked for an audit the trustee was likely to be offended. [An Hon. Member: Some of them are now.] Well, there was one thing they knew. The trustee appointed under this Bill would not be offended, and he thought the very best advertisement that could be given to the Bill was that in the case of trusts under it they would have that compulsory audit which was admitted to be of the greatest possible advantage.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he viewed the proposal of his hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen with some sympathy. His hon. friend's experience in these matters had been extensive, and he had shown an immense amount of practical knowledge of the subject, and possibly the object which he had in view might be attained when this clause had been in operation sufficiently long to enable them to obtain experience of its working. He would point out, however, that the proposal of his hon. friend was a very large one. He suggested the adoption of a scheme of audit which would be applied to every estate whether large or small, whether it needed an annual audit or not, and whether or not the parties desired it. As he understood the proposal, his hon. friend desired an automatic audit of every trust of every size, whether the trust was constituted by an instrument made with that object alone, or was created under an instrument which had some other object. Such a proposal was exceedingly drastic and wide. The House had never discussed it. It had never been discussed by the profession, or by those who in the last twenty years had been interested in framing this legislation. He concurred in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University that to try to bring it into existence at this period of the Bill would be to imperil the passing of the measure. He was sure his hon. friend did not wish that the Bill should be imperilled. He would point out that the present clause went a long way to meet the hon. Member. He thought they were making a substantial step towards the goal which they might ultimately reach after they had had experience of the working of this clause. The Bill as it stood would give the beneficiary, or any one trustee, the right to have the accounts of the estate audited. That in itself was a very important provision. He could not conceive a trustee refusing to accept a trust because he would have to submit to an audit of the accounts. The proposed trustee would rather say he would accept the trust, provided the accounts were audited. It would tend to relieve him from liability to have a compulsory audit taken annually. Under the clause they had a
1584
very far-reaching scheme for the audit of trust accounts, but the universal application of a yearly audit would, if provided for, be outside the practical scope of this measure. He did not think the Committee would be wise to go outside that range and accept a proposal which might be adopted two or three years hence but which, if inserted at this stage, would imperil the measure.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he had very much sympathy with his hon. friend in his endeavour to get a compulsory yearly audit, but he was afraid that if he persisted in his Amendment and carried it, it would wreck the Bill, which was a better measure than anything they had had up to the present and which might be made better still in time. He agreed that it would be an enormous relief to trustees if they could get a compulsory audit, but having regard to the impracticability of getting such a clause in this promising Bill, he appealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.
* MR. RADFORDsaid he had listened to the arguments of the hon. and learned Attorney-General and had not been moved by them. They were arguments that could be used against any new proposals, and were the kind of arguments always used by Ministers who did not agree with the proposals that were suggested. He was in favour of the Amendment. In this Bill nothing had yet been done to promote the object of the promoters, which was to give security to trust funds. The Bill was purely optional, and no one would suggest that the people of this country would appoint no trustee but the public trustee. The proposal of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire did not introduce a new principle in the method of administering their affairs. He had followed the lines of custom and habit of enlightened people who considered their duties, as trustees, to the beneficiaries and considered the responsibility of their own position, and who did, as a matter of fact, have a periodical audit by competent accountants for the satisfaction both of their beneficiaries and of themselves. If the Government pursued that course he

1585
thought they would be taking a wise course, and that it would result in making a law that would be operative. So far nothing had been done except to ensure that a number of gentlemen should receive appointments and salaries. Though trusts were now administered fairly well, the beneficiaries did not know anything of the way in which they were administered, or whether even the primary duties of the trustee were being carried out. He quite agreed that any attempt on the part of a beneficiary to obtain an account from the trustee was likely to lead to quarrels; but if the suggestion embodied in this Amendment was accepted it would make the audit compulsory, and the trustee would not have to refuse the beneficiaries information, and hence there could be no quarrel that kind. It was the air of secrecy with which trusts were conducted that led to negligence, irregularity, and fraud, and it was in order to put a stop to those things that hon. Members were anxious to find a device of some sort. They were indifferent as to whether it was done by a public trustee or in some other way. If a compulsory periodical audit were enforced the result would be to improve the conduct of trustees all round, because while some were dishonest the great majority were merely negligent or stupid. It would be to the benefit of the beneficiaries and the community alike, and it would pull up short those trustees who were negligent or speculative. If a man knew his trust funds were to be audited at a short date by a competent accountant he would think twice before he committed an irregularity or fraud. That would do more to prevent fraud than the appointment of public trustees and a large staff of officials. They were not without some precedent for this legislation. The Bankruptcy Act of 1883, although not in his opinion a good Act, certainly contained one good clause, which enabled the Board of Trade to call upon all trustees of liquidations under the previous Act of 1869 to bring in their accounts. The result of that was in some respects deplorable, because a number of persons who had up to that time held a high position in their profession were found to have
1586
misappropriated trust funds, and there were sad smashes in various directions. If this Amendment were carried it might be that some people interested in trust estates would have a rude awakening in a similar way, but that was not an argument against the Amendment. It was desirable, if a trust fund was being mismanaged or misappropriated, that they should know the worst and the sooner the better. For these reasons he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. BERTRAMsaid hon. Members of this Committee seemed to think there was some magic in the word "shall" and that the insertion of the word in this Bill would, ipso facto, produce an audit of all trusts. That was not so. In this Bill there was no machinery to penalise trustees who did not obey the mandate. Supposing a trustee ignored the section what penalty was there. How could this section be put into motion except upon the application of some person who desired the audit? The mere insertion of the word "shall," would not have the effect the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest of causing a compulsory audit of trust accounts throughout the country. They must remember that there were a large number of trusts in this country in which there were, in practice, no accounts to be audited; such trusts for example as marriage settlements under which the trustees had given directions that the income from the securities should be paid over direct to the tenant for life. There was no machinery in this Bill to enforce penalties, and if the Amendment was incorporated in the Bill it would not be operative.
*MR. R. PEARCEsaid the words proposed to be left out were "on an application being made." He desired to know whether that application was to be made to the Court or to the public trustee. It seemed to be desirable that there should be some summary method of getting this audit.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it was not intended to make an application to the Court. It was to be made to the public trustee.
*MR. R. PEARCEsaid that explanation removed the doubt he had in his mind and made the clause satisfactory. He thought the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire would, after what had been just said, do wisely if, having made his protest, he did not proceed further.
MR. DUNNsaid he was in sympathy with the object the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire had in view, but he certainly saw very great difficulties in carrying it out. The only difficulty with regard to the form of the clause was that unfortunately it required of persons who were probably most unwilling to audit the duty of auditing. If the clause contained words relating to the desire of a testator or settlor in regard to the audit it would certainly be more valuable than in its present form.
MR. J. M. HENDERSON,in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said he still felt it would have to come; why not at this opportunity he could not see. He admitted there was protection wherever the public trustee was appointed, but there were thousands of trusts existing now for which this Bill provided absolutely no protection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn:
Amendment proposed—
In page 10, line 31, to leave out the word 'applicant,' and to insert the word beneficiaries."—(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That the word "applicant' stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONthought the word "applicant" ought to remain in the clause.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid there was difficulty in accepting any word in lieu of "applicant" in this clause, though the word itself was open to objection. The whole clause as drawn was an astonishingly difficult clause.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 10, line 37, to leave out the word 'entitled,' and insert the words 'appointed under this section."
"In page 11, line 3, after the word 'any,' to insert the words 'securities and."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. MICKLEMmoved an Amendment to save expense by requiring that copies of the accounts need only be sent to trustees who desired them.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 3, after the word 'trustee,' to insert the words 'who may desire it."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment. Every trustee, whether he desired it or not, should have a copy of the accounts.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 11, line 11, after the word 'trust,' to insert the words, 'and that he has had the securities of the trust fund investments produced to and verified by him."—(Mr. J. M. Henderson.)
"In page 11, line 11, at end, to insert the words, 'or (as the case may be) that such accounts are deficient in such respects as may be specified in such certificate."—(Mr. Micklem.)
"In page 11, line 23, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'such as may be prescribed by rules under this Act and shall"—(Sir John Walton.)
Amendments agreed to.
*MR. RADFORDmoved an Amendment to provide that the expenses of the audit should be borne, not as the clause proposed by the applicant, but by the estate. If some such words as these were not

1589
inserted there would be scarcely any applications at all to the public trustee and the whole clause would be inoperative.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 23, to leave out from the word 'shall,' to end of clause, and to insert the words 'be paid by the trustees out of the income or capital of the trust property, or partly out of one and partly out of the other as may be prescribed."—(Mr. Radford.)
Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was willing so to amend the clause that in the normal case the expenses would fall on the estate, but at the same time giving the public trustee discretion to apportion the expenses between the applicant and the estate.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid there was no necessity whatever for bringing in a public trustee unless there was a dispute as to appointment and as to payment.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that as the clause stood it contained the words "if the public trustee otherwise directs." There was nothing which enabled him to deal with the question of expense. The applicant would pay unless the public trustee said he should not pay. He would suggest the words "In the event of the public trustee so directing he may order that such expenses be borne by the estate, or by the trustees personally, or partly by them and partly by the estate."
MR. MICKLEMsaid that under Section 14 the cost would have to be borne whether the public trustee came in or not. Assuming that the case was properly brought under the section, he thought the expenses ought not to fall upon the applicant. This section would not be brought into operation at all if the applicant had to pay. He thought it was manifest that the cost of the audit ought to be borne by the estate and ought not to be thrown upon the applicant.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid he had an Amendment down in the same sense, but the difficulty was that the Attorney-General wanted to throw the whole cost upon the applicant unless the public trustee otherwise directed. He wished to do exactly the opposite.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was anxious that this Bill should meet every case in the best possible manner. There was a real difficulty with regard to the cost of the investigations of the auditors, and it should not be passed over in a moment. It depended upon who had to bear the cost whether the Act would be availed of or not. As trusts were conducted to-day the trustees kept the accounts, and if any beneficiary wanted a copy he had to pay for it. Without this section the applicant would have to pay the costs. It was now proposed that the costs should be thrown upon the estate, and he thought that would lead to some confusion. Did that mean capital or income? It should not be forgotten that a large number of trusts were fully invested and there was no spare money. These were practical difficulties in the administration of estates.
*MR. RADFORDsaid the words proposed by the Attorney-General would not give effect to what he desired so well as the words which he himself had moved. He was of opinion that rules made deliberately and at leisure would probably carry out the purpose in view better than words in the Act suggested on the spur of the moment even by so high an authority as the Attorney-General. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the matter.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he thought it would be very much better to have words in the Act.
*MR. RADFORDasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 24, to leave out the words 'paid by the applicant,' and insert the words

1591
'and in the event of the public trustee so directing, he may order that such expense may be borne by the applicant, or by the trustees personally, or partly by them and partly by the applicant."—(J. M. Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsuggested that some words should be inserted to show whether the expense was to be paid out of capital or interest.
Question put, and negatived.
Words proposed there inserted.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 15, at end to add, '(f) the classes of corporate bodies entitled to act as custodian trustees; (g) the form and manner in which notices under this Act shall be given."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:—
MR. MICKLEMmoved to add words defining the expression "administration of an estate" as meaning "administration of the estate of a deceased person." He thought the words "administration of an estate" were ambiguous and that they might apply to the administration of any trust estate in the lifetime of the person creating the trust. This was merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 34, at end, to add, the expression 'administration of an estate' means 'administration of the estate of a deceased person."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid if this were merely a drafting Amendment he would not take exception to it, but it was capable of being construed in a sense which would make it dangerous. He thought the Amendment was unnecessary.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he did not think the definition which he proposed to introduce would cut down what was provided for in Clause 3, but it would make clear that the clause was only intended to apply to the trust estates of deceased persons.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not accept the view that Clause 3 should be limited to estates of that class.
MR. MICKLEMsaid it seemed to him to be quite a new provision in the Bill if it was to be made to apply to settlements by persons still surviving. He thought the intention was not to interfere with what a man did during his lifetime.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the words "administration of an estate" occurred in two or three other clauses as well as Clause 3. If the proposed definition were accepted confusion would be created in regard to the other clauses.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that the object of the next Amendment was only to give the same construction to this Act as to the Act of 1896.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 3, at the end, to insert the words 'that other expressions have the same meaning as the meaning of the words in the Judicial Trustee Act of 1896."—(Sir John Walton.)
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
*SIR JOHN WALTONmoved a new clause to bring the Act into operation from 1st January, 1908.
New clause, "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1908."—(Sir John Walton.)
Brought up, read the first time, and added to the Bill.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he wished to move a financial clause left over from the previous night.
New clause—
"(1) The Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom shall be liable to make good all sums required to discharge any liability which the Public Trustee, if he were a private trustee would be personally liable to discharge, except where the liability is one to which neither the Public Trustee nor any of his officers has in any way contributed, and which neither he nor any of his officers could by the exercise of reasonable diligence have averted, and in that case the Public Trustee shall not, nor shall the Consolidated Fund, be subject to any liability;(2) All sums payable in pursuance of this section out of the Consolidated Fund shall be charged on and issued out of that fund or the growing produce thereof."—(Sir John Walton.)—
Brought up and read the first time and the second time.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he wished to move to omit the words 'from discharge to the end of the sub-section. It was quite clear, he maintained, that one of the main objects of the Bill was to put the public trustee in a similar position to a private trustee, and make him liable in the same way as a private trustee, and therefore no exception should be made to the one which did not apply to the other.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4, of the proposed new clause, to leave out the words 'from discharge' to the end of sub-section,"—(Mr. Micklem.)
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he regretted that he could not accept the Amendment. The intention of the Bill
1594
was to offer to the public a guarantee in regard to all funds which were placed in the hands of the public officer constituted under its provisions. It was for the public to say whether that guarantee was sufficient to make it worth their while to hand over their funds to him. If they did so they would have the undertaking of the Imperial Government. But the Treasury and the Executive authority did not see their way to give an unqualified guarantee in every case. The reasons were given when the Bill was last before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament, now Lord St. Aldwyn, who made a statement that it would be imprudent to provide for a larger indemnity than was embodied in the clause as it now stood. If the public believed that the security was sufficient, then the Bill would be a success; but if they considered that it was not sufficient, then trusts would be left in the hands of private trustees.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he thought that the hon. and learned Attorney-General was quite right in regard to the maintenance of those words in the clause. Under the Trustees Act of 1896 where the trustee was not personally guilty where any fraud was committed he was freed from all responsibility.
MR. HERBERTsaid that it appeared to him that the liability of a public official was very different from that of an ordinary trustee. He thought that the case would be met by the third section of the Judicial Trustee Act, and it appeared to him a mistake to grant relief from liability in a form of words different from that in the Act mentioned.
*MR. RADFORD:said that in regard to this Bill they were in the position of a firm pushing a new article, namely, the Public Trustee, who

1595
had to compete with various other articles on the market—the private trustee and the various corporations who did this class of business. By this measure it was provided that the Public Trustee should be liable to make good any loss which up to the present the private trustee had been liable to discharge. So far, so good, but he could imagine the family solicitor closeted with the testator and considering the question of whether the Public Trustee should be appointed or not. The family solicitor would say to the testator, "I must draw your attention to the words of sub-section 1, of Clause 17 of the Public Trustee Act." He would read to the testator the words which showed that the Public Trustee was liable under the same conditions as the private trustee except when the liability was one to which the Public Trustee had not nor had any of his officers in any way contributed, and could not have averted by reasonable diligence, and that in that case the Public Trustee was not, nor was the Consolidated Fund to be liable. He thought that the testator in considering those words would regard them as something alarming, and I would be inclined not to take the Public Trustee to administer his affairs, but to stick to the old plan of having a private trustee. He did not very clearly understand what the meaning of those words might be, and although he had listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Attorney-General had said, he did not glean from his remarks what was their precise bearing. No doubt it was his own fault and due to some defect in his intelligence, but the words were long and complicated, and they were the more alarming from the fact that they were insisted upon by the
1596
Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted upon these words being inserted the right hon. Gentleman must think that there were certain liabilities which might sound in damages from which it was desirable to escape. He appealed to the hon. and learned Attorney-General who desired to promote the success of the Bill to consider this matter.
MR. MICKLEMasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MICKLEMmoved after the word "discharge" in line 4 of the proposed new clause, to insert "or to discharge any liability incurred by the Public Trustee in that capacity." He said it must be perfectly manifest to the Committee that the Consolidated Fund should be liable not only for any acts of the Public Trustee for which he would be liable if he were a private trustee, but also for the action of the Public Trustee for anything he did in his public capacity. The Public Trustee had under some sections of the Act judicial authority. He might go completely wrong and make the various beneficiaries incur costs which there was no way of meeting, unless words were inserted which enacted that the Consolidated Fund should be liable for the acts of the Public Trustee as such. Then in addition to his judicial functions, the Public Trustee had administrative functions us distinguished from the private trustee. There were certain sections inserted directing him to undertake certain duties, and if in consequence of his discharge of those duties, loss resulted to the beneficiary,

1597
he thought the Consolidated Fund ought to be liable.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4 of the proposed new clause, after the word 'discharge' to insert the words 'or to discharge any liability incurred by the Public Trustee in that capacity."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Amendment did not seem to him to be necessary, but he would consider the matter. The, substance of the Amendment, he thought, was effectively provided for.
MR. MICKLEMsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. R. PEARCE,who had given notice of the following Amendment—
"In line 12, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the Consolidated Fund shall not be liable under this section while the national expenditure under the control of Parliament and provided for by taxes exceeds one hundred million pounds in the year,"
said that this matter was dismissed the night before, and he did not apprehend that the Government would since have changed their mind. It would therefore be no use persevering with his Motion.
Clause agreed to.
New clause:—
"The salary or remuneration of the Public Trustee and his officers and such other expenses of executing his office or otherwise carrying this Act into effect as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."—(Sir John Walton.)
Brought up and read the first and the second time and added to the Bill.
New clause:—
"(1) There shall be charged in respect of the duties of the Public Trustee such fees, whether by way of percentage or otherwise, as the Treasury with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor may fix, and such fees shall be collected and accounted for by such persons and in such manner, and shall be paid to such account as the Treasury direct. (2) Any expenses which might be retained or paid out of the trust property if the Public Trustee; were a private trustee shall be so retained or paid, and the fees shall be retained or paid in the like manner as and in addition to such expenses. (3) Such fees shall, under the regulations of the Treasury, be applied as an appropriation in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for expenses under this Act, and, so far as not no applied, shall be paid into the Exchequer. (4) The fees under this section shall be arranged from time to time so as to produce an annual amount sufficient to discharge the salaries and other expenses incidental to the working of this Act (including such sum as the Treasury may from time to time determine to be required to ensure the Consolidated Fund against loss under this Act), and no more."—(Sir John Walton.)
Brought up and read the first and the second time.
MR. MICKLEMmoved at the end of the proposed new clause to insert—
"(5) The incidence of the fees and expenses under this section as between capital and income shall be determined by the Public Trustee subject to appeal to the Court."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would accept the Amendment if the last words "subject to appeal to the Court" were omitted. He did not think those words were wanted, and if they were left out he thought the Amendment would be a useful one.
MR. MICKLEMconsented to the omission of the words.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 20 of proposed new clause, at the end, to insert, the words '(5) The incidence of the fees and expenses under this section as

1599
between capital and income shall be determined by the Public Trustee."—(Mr. Micklem.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD,having alluded to the difficulties of auditing if the apportionment of the charges between capital and income was not dealt, with, made one more appeal to the hon. and learned Attorney-General to make the matter clear.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would consider the matter.
*MR. R. PEARCEsaid he noticed that the clause proposed that this matter should be left in the hands of the public trustee. In New Zealand, where this subject had been a matter of considerable discussion, it was not left to the public trustee, but there was a graduated scale with a diminishing charge as the estates increased in value. He thought that such a provision should be prescribed by some higher authority than the public trustee and should be dealt with by rules.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid there was a provision to the effect that the Lord Chancellor should frame rules, and these would have reference to the question whether the incidence of these fees should fall upon capital or income.
Motion made, and Question proposed.
"That the clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
MR. J. D. WHITEsaid that before this question was put to the House be would like to call attention
1600
to the financial arrangements in all these clauses and particularly with regard to this clause. It was provided that all fees should go into the Consolidated Fund and all payments both as to management and liability and insurance against liability, etc., were to come from the Consolidated Fund. He ventured, however, to think Section 5 was by no means sufficient to make the ends meet. There was considerable danger that there might be in various directions a balance of liability on the Consolidated Fund. He pointed out also that while the benefits of the Bill extended to England alone, the Consolidated Fund was contributed to by Scotland and Ireland. He had no claim to speak for Ireland, but so far as Scotland was concerned, he could say that she also needed a public trustee. It not infrequently happened in Scotland that small estates were either mismanaged and wasted or the profits were eaten up by legal expenses. All he could do was to express the hope that as Scotland contributed to the liability under this Bill she should not be refused the benefit of it, and that the Government in the near future would either constitute a public trustee for Scotland or in some other way consider her claims when the question of equivalent grants came up for discussion.
MR. MICKLEMsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed was that persons who were dealing with beneficiaries should be able to obtain information as to the state of the property of such beneficiaries. The whole matter was somewhat technical but, as all those who understood the question

1601
knew, a trustee under the present law was not bound to answer any questions put to him even if they were put with the authority of the beneficiary as to any assignments made by him. He ventured to think that if we were to have a public trustee he should be bound to keep a register and to answer any questions put on behalf of the beneficiary. The object of this was to enable a man interested in an estate to borrow money upon his interest if he required to do so for any purposes of his own on marketable terms. If no register was kept and the trustee refused to answer any questions, the person borrowing money would have to go to a moneylender and pay unfair rates of interest, although he was dealing with his own property. There could be no possible objection to the Public Trustee being bound to keep a register to which beneficiaries and others interested might go and see what was being done. Without imposing any hardship on the trustee it would be of great benefit to all beneficiaries who wanted to deal with their estates. He begged to move.
New clauses—
'(1) The public trustee shall keep a register of all notices received by him, including notices passed on to him by former or other trustees, of assignments, settlements, in cumbrances, and other dealings affecting, and Orders of Court changing or appointing, receivers of the present or future interest of any beneficiary in the property subject to the trust. (2) It shall be the duty of the public trustee to acknowledge the receipt of all notices received by him in respect of any of the before-mentioned matters. (3) The register relating to each trust shall be open to inspection by the beneficiaries or persons authorised by them at all reasonable times. (4) Any person suffering loss by reason of the failure of the public trustee to enter on the register such notices as aforesaid shall be entitled to be indemnified by the public trustee, and such loss shall be deemed to be a liability within Section 7 of this Act. Subject to
1602
rules under this Act any person claiming as beneficiary, purchaser, or mortgagee to interested in any trust property held by the public trustee either alone or jointly shall be entitled to give a notice to the public trustee to operate as regards the trust property in the same manner as a distring as notice or stop order operates upon stock standing in the books of a company or upon funds in Court. In any case where the public trustee is acting as custodian trustee jointly with other trustees notices required to be served on the trustees shall be deemed to be duly served if served on the public trustee alone."—(Mr. Micklem.)—
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*SIR JOHN WALTONexpressed the hope that the Amendment would not be pressed. He pointed out that as the law now stood, m the absence of any express provision, the public trustee would be in exactly the same position as a private trustee, subject to the same obligations, and with a right to exercise a similar discretion. His conduct would be regulated by the rules of law applicable to the administration of estates. This Bill contemplated that in making rules the Lord Chancellor should deal with the exceptional situation arising from the fact that the public trustee had been called in to discharge duties which had hitherto devolved upon private persons. It was certain that some provision would have to be made in those rules in order to enable the object of the hon. Member to be carried out. The whole matter was one of detail, and one which would have to be considered, and he did not think it would tend to the practical value of the scheme if the Government accepted the Amendment.
MR. MICKLEMsaid that, in the face of the assurance of the Attorney-General

1603
that this matter would be considered and dealt with by the rules proposed to be made by the Lord Chancellor, he would not press the Amendment.
New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Title:
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'the Judicial Trustee Act, 1890, and otherwise."—(Sir John Walton.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTexpressed the Committee's sense of the tact and great courtesy with which the Attorney-General had conducted the Bill through Committee.
Bill reported, with an amended title; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 378.]

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Bryce.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
That they insist on their Amendments to the Education (England and Wales) Bill to which this House has disagreed, for which they assign their reason.
That they have agreed to—Land Tax Commissioners Bill, Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, with an Amendment; Land Tenure Bill, Workmen's Compensation Bill, Notice of Accidents Bill, with Amendments.

TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
That they agree to the Amendment made by this House to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Trade Disputes Bill, and to the consequential Amendment made by this House to the Bill; and do not insist on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
Lords reason to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 379.]
LAND TENURE BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 380.]
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 381.]

NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed, [Bill 382.]
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at half after Nine o'clock.

AIRTH PEERAGE.
Petition of Robert Barclay Allardice Barclay Allardice for leave to lodge his printed case on or before the third sitting day after the next ensuing meeting of Parliament; read, and ordered as prayed.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ure Elder Fund Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Ardrossan, Saltcoats, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Dunfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Dunbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.];Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Recorders, Stipendiary Magistrates, and Clerks of the Peace Bill; Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Edinburgh Surburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Statistics of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1897 is and 1900, and the Employer's Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1905; presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, with one Amendment agreed to, with an amendment, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement; The said Amendments and reasons to be printed; and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 255.)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): My Lords, in order that we may proceed at once to the consideration of the Education Bill I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No, XXI, be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and that the adjourned debate on the Bill have precedence of other notices and Orders of the Day."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion that the Commons' reason for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments be now considered, and on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne to the foregoing Motion, viz., to leave out all the words after "That" for the purpose of inserting the following words, viz.:—
  "This House (1) records its protest against the innovation in constitutional procedure by which the Commons have rejected the whole of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, including those proposed by His Majesty's Ministers, without assigning, in any case, specific reasons for the rejection of those Amendments; and(2) adjourns the consideration of the Commons' message in order to afford His Majesty's Government an opportunity of making a definite statement to the House as to the course which His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend to the House of Commons with regard to each material Amendment to the Bill."
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to say two or or three words as to the procedure which might be followed this evening. I am sure we all desire that that procedure should be as simple and as easily intelligible as possible. At this moment the Amendment which I moved the night before last to the Motion of the Lord President of the Council holds the field. That Amendment had two parts. In the first place, I invited your Lordships to

  1371
  place on the records of this House a protest against the manner in which the Amendments made by your Lordships to the Education Bill had been dealt with by the other House of Parliament; and in the second part of my Amendment I suggested that the debate should be adjourned in order to afford His Majesty's Government an opportunity of making a definite statement to the House as to the course which His Majesty's Government might be prepared to recommend to the House of Commons with regard to each material Amendment to the Bill. That invitation was taken advantage of by the Lord President of the Council. He did not wait for the adjournment, but he at once made an important statement to the House, and since that time he has laid on the Table a series of Amendments. I therefore think that we must consider that the noble Earl, I do not say entirely to our satisfaction, but going as far as he felt himself justified in going, has complied with the terms of the second portion of my Amendment. I therefore think it would be convenient that I should withdraw that part of the Amendment; but I remain of opinion that a protest of the kind which I have invited your Lordships to make should be made, and I therefore suggest that we should add to it the Motion which the Lord President will make, and that we might say that this House, before proceeding to consider the Commons' reason for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, "records its protest," and so on. I do not know whether that commends itself to noble Lords opposite but I suggest it is the most convenient way of disposing of the difficulties of procedure.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; and the following Resolution moved in lieu thereof, viz., "Before considering the Commons' reason this House records its protest against the innovation in Constitutional procedure by which the Commons have rejected the whole of the Lords' Amendment to the Education Bill, including those proposed by His Majesty's Ministers, without assigning, in any case, specific reasons for the rejection of those Amendments."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, as far as the matter of procedure is concerned, I think that the course
  1372
  proposed by my noble friend might be adopted; but there my agreement with my noble friend ceases. I cannot accept in any degree whatever the Amendment in its amended form which he proposes, and I shall feel bound to take the opinion of the House by a division on that Resolution. I do not want to raise more controversy than I can help about these matters. My desire is, as far as possible, to avoid anything that would create disagreeable feeling on either side of the House. My objection to the Amendment of my noble friend is that I believe it to be, in the first place, inaccurate. It charges the House of Commons with having taken some proceedings which are in the opinion of the noble Marquess inconsistent with constitutional practice. I deny that altogether. My noble friend might have said that the House of Commons was uncivil or uncourteous, or he might have applied to them any other unpleasant epithets; but, my Lords, unconstitutional their proceedings have not been. It is perfectly consistent with the Constitution of this country—indeed I had almost said it is part of the Constitution—that both Houses of Parliament should regulate their own proceedings. They can regulate them as they please. They may regulate them wisely or foolishly, but it is within their constitutional right to regulate them as they please; and therefore on that ground alone, if it rested only there, I should feel bound to resist the Amendment of the noble Marquess. But apart from that I confess that I am somewhat surprised that my noble friend should have persisted in his Amendment after the speech made on Monday night by my noble friend behind me, the Lord President of the Council. I should have thought that that speech, made with all the authority of my noble friend, would have been sufficient to remove from your Lordships' minds any idea that the course which the House of Commons took in this matter was intended to indicate any want of consideration or respect for your Lordships' House. Nothing could be more definite and explicit than the language of my noble friend speaking on behalf of the Government, who in the House of Commons had concurred in the step which was taken; and I confess I should have thought your Lordships might have been willing to accept a statement of that kind made in

  1373
  such friendly terms, and with such an obvious desire to remove from your Lordships' minds any notion that any insult or impertinence was intended to your Lordships. I should have thought that my noble friend opposite and those behind him might have accepted the authority of my noble friend, which I
  feel sure your Lordships will agree is entitled to the respect and consideration of the House.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 138.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Selby, V.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Haversham, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Headley, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

  Boston, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  De La, Warr, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Davey, L.

  Reay, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Sandhurst, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Russell, E

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

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Stamford, E

  Tenterden, L.

  Temple, E

  Eversley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Lauderdale, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Lindsey, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Lonsdale, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Bedford, D.

  Lucan, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Mayo, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Morley, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Portland, D.

  Morton, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Nelson, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Radnor, E.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

  Barrymore, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Belper, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Blythswood, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Carnwath, E.

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

  Cathcart, E.

  Bridport, V.

  Cawdor, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Burton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Cross, V.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Clinton, L.

  Derby, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Devon, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Colchester, L.

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

  Halifax, V.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Hardinge, V.

  De Freyne, L.

  Essex, E.

  Hill, V.

  De Mauley, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Deramore, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Digby, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Faber, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Forester, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Gage L. (V. Gage.)

  Grenfell, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Michelham, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Harris, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hothfield, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Sinclair, L.

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

  Newton, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  North, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

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

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhougie.)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Talbot, de Malahide, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  On Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
  Commons reason considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I now rise to make a Motion dealing with this most important matter. I beg to move that this House do insist on its Amendments to the Education Bill. The noble Marquess who spoke just now referred to the interesting statement made on Monday evening by the Lord President of the Council, and he expressed his astonishment that we on this side of the House should not have been contented by the substance and the tone of that message. I freely admit that nothing could have been more considerate in tone than the speech of the noble Lord. I am also quite ready to admit that his statement marked a considerable advance upon any of the statements made by his colleagues in the other House. If I may be permitted to say so, however, the noble Earl in the course of his statement left untouched a great many subjects on which we on this side of the House feel most strongly.
  An adjournment ensued, and I imagine that it is a matter of notoriety that advantage was taken of that adjournment in order to effect an exchange of views between the Leaders of the two Parties. I have seen references to a conference. To my mind the word conference is wholly inapplicable to such discussions as those in which we have taken part. The word has a very technical meaning. I believe it carries with it a good many somewhat obsolete incidents, such, for example, as the representatives of the House of Lords wearing their hats and meeting representatives of the House of Commons without that covering. The advantage of a discussion such as that which has taken
  1376
  place in the last few days is that it is of a wholly informal character, that proposals or suggestions can be made in the most confidential manner and entirely without prejudice to those who make them. I have therefore no right to refer to what took place during those conversations or to their result. I say this particularly because we are now in full possession in the most official form of the decision at which the Government have arrived in reference to this Bill.
  Your Lordships have received this morning the Amendments of which notice has been given by the Lord President, and I have no doubt you have studied them. I assume that those Amendments are officially the last word which the Government have to say with regard to the Amendments which your Lordships have inserted in this Bill. I am very far from suggesting that upon some of the points at issue there has not been room for a transaction between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. Weave never excluded from our minds the idea that some arrangement of that kind might be arrived at. But I am afraid I must add that the Amendments proposed by the Lord President seem to me to leave the Bill in a shape in which this House could not possibly accept it.
  It is impossible in such a statement as I now have to make to pass in review seriatim in detail the minor issues raised by these Amendments; but there are a certain number of them which by their intrinsic importance stand out in clear relief and so to speak dominate all the others. One such set of Amendments is that which has reference to the position of teachers. The teachers, if I may say so, are almost the key of the position. We have constantly demanded that full freedom should be given to the teachers. We have done that upon many grounds.

  1377
  We have made the request because we believe that to refuse that request is to put an affront upon the liberty of conscience of the teachers themselves. We have recommended it because we believed that in a great number of our schools it would be absolutely impossible to find volunteers who could take upon themselves the duty of the religious instruction now performed by the teachers of the schools. We have recommended it again upon the ground that to deprive the teacher of these particular functions cannot fail to be highly detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the school itself.
  The importance of this question seems to me to be enormously increased in consequence of the attitude which His Majesty's Government have taken up throughout these discussions with regard to what we speak of as Clause 4 schools. It is perfectly plain from what we have been told by the Lord President of the Council, and what we have learned from other sources, that in the view of His Majesty's Government these Clause 4 schools are to be altogether exceptional—they are intended for the Roman Catholics, the Jews, and for a small fraction only of the Church of England. Now it follows from that that all schools which do not fall within the thus limited scope of Clause 4 will have to depend entirely upon what they can get out of Clause 3.
  I ask your Lordships to remember that in regard to the fourth clause a minority of parents will be able to impose upon the school and upon the people interested in the school its transformation from a school of the type which it has always represented to the new type of school created under this Bill. I will also remind your Lordships that in cases where alternative accommodation is not accessible, there an insignificant minority of the children may prevent the school from obtaining extended facilities. It follows, therefore, that in the great majority of cases these schools, no matter how denominational has been their atmosphere in the past, will find themselves compelled to fall back upon Clause 3 facilities.
  Now, my Lords, what are Clause 3 facilities worth if the teachers are not permitted to give religious instruction in
  1378
  these schools? That brings me to the offer which his Majesty's Government have made to us in regard to the teachers. If you will turn to the Amendments on the Paper you will see these proposals. In the first place it is left open to any local authority absolutely to forbid of its own will any teacher, no matter in what school, to give religious instruction. In the next place no head teacher is ever to give religious instruction. In the third place, even where the assistants—who are the only people to whom this permission is to be given—are allowed to give religious instruction, they can give it only if and when the school numbers over 250 pupils. If your Lordships will consider the cumulative effect of these various restrictions you will see how complete is the denial of that freedom for which we ask for the teachers of this country. In our view, the insistence of His Majesty's Government upon that denial is in itself an almost insuperable obstacle in the way of such a friendly arrangement as we at one time hoped to effect.
  I have examined as carefully as I have been able to do in the short time at nay disposal the other proposals put upon the Paper by the noble Earl opposite, and I find amongst them the following provisions which I will enumerate as briefly as I can. The noble Earl passes over in silence the question of the deletion of the urban area limit in the fourth clause. He also passes over in silence the most important Amendment in the second sub-section of Clause 8, which provides that the local authority is to satisfy itself of the fitness of a teacher to give Cowper-Temple teaching. The noble Earl is also silent upon the subject of the retention of the Welsh clause. But then I come to other points upon which the noble Earl is not silent, but eloquent. He proposes that we should not insist upon the important Amendment inserted by Lord St. Aldwyn in Clause 3, under which two days a week certain were secured for facilities in Clause 3 schools. He proposes, further, that we should not insist upon the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Salisbury in regard to facilities for single-school area children in council schools. In the same clause he proposes that we should not insist upon the appeal—the

  1379
  most important appeal—to the Board of Education in cases where facilities are not properly provided.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: You mean in Clause 3.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, that is all in Clause 3. Now I pass to Clause 4. The noble Earl asks us to abandon the Amendment in which we substituted the word "shall" for "may" at the beginning of the clause. We have to consider, with that Amendment, the most unsatisfactory state of affairs in which the Government clauses leave the condition of appeal throughout this part of the Bill. Then, again, in paragraph (b) of Clause 4 we are asked to consent to an arrangement under which the minority is to be counted by including, not only those who come forward to protest, but also those who remain silent, a point upon which many of your Lord-ships feel strongly.
  Further on, the important Amendment which was inserted at my instance as to the manner in which the question of alternative accommodation should be dealt with is proposed to be got rid of; and I find, in the same clause, that we are asked not to insist upon the Amendment which we introduced with the object of making it clear that the local education authority might not in a Clause 4 school forbid the teacher to teach. That is a most important point. I confess I was under an apprehension that that permission would not be denied in those purely denominational schools. In Clause 7 we are asked to give up the effective provision which we had made for the creation of new schools with denominational facilities. I find substituted for it a provision entirely confined to Clause 4 schools, and requiring persons who wish to build a new school to build it on the mere chance that it might afterwards be taken over by the local authority. Then in Clause 8 the discretion of the authorities to permit the teacher to teach religion is extended also to the Clause 4 schools.
  Those are some of the proposals which your Lordships are asked to assent to. There are one or two points upon which I would like to say a few words. In these Amendments we find reintroduced
  1380
  the State-aided school in its most objectionable form. It appears, not as an alternative which it would be open to the owners of the school to accept, but as a penal alternative that may be imposed upon any school which had reason to complain of the manner in which these facilities were accorded—a school which appeals for redress and which, instead of obtaining redress, is condemned to the position of a State-aided school without any support from the rates, and, by a further provision in these Amendments, becomes a school which may be established without any precautions for seeing that it has a reasonable prospect of maintaining its efficiency at a proper standard. There is something to be said on the question of State-aided schools. To a State-aided school in that form we on this side of the House have the strongest possible objection.
  Then I find also amongst these new Amendments a provision I think objectionable in that part of the Bill which relates to the taking over of schools by the local authority. Unless I misunderstand the Amendment on the Paper, it is intended that it should be open to the local authority to refuse one of these schools upon the mere ground of redundancy, unless its redundancy can be shown to be of an entirely temporary nature. Therefore, however necessary the school may be from the point of view of the parents, no attention need be paid to that consideration, and it may be dealt with on the high and dry ground of redundancy alone.
  Let me point out how remarkable it is that upon points of this kind His Majesty's Government deny altogether to the authority that discretion which we have so often asked for in vain in regard to other points in the Bill. As I said before, we should be perfectly ready to consider points of mere detail. I am glad to admit that in one or two points in his Amendments the noble Earl has done something to meet us; but what we feel is that the points to which I have referred are not points of detail, but vital points; and if we have, as I believe we have, reason to believe that these are points which His Majesty's Government regard as essential to a settlement, then I say with very great regret that we do not see our way to accept a settlement on those lines.

  1381
  We are told that the Bill as amended by us is a Bill entirely without value in the eyes of noble Lords opposite and their friends. Let me remind your Lordships that in the Bill as amended by the House of Lords we find a full admission of the principle of popular control. We find provisions which make it impossible for any denominational religious instruction to be given at the public expense. We find provisions which render Cowper-Temple teaching accessible to every child in all schools, and we find an arrangement with regard to what is commonly spoken of as "tests for teachers" which I do not gather is seriously objected to even by noble Lords opposite. I ask noble Lords opposite, are they justified in saying that a Bill containing all these provisions is a Bill which they cannot venture to recommend to the people of this country?
  We have now to consider what procedure should be followed in dealing with these Amendments. It is impossible for us to accept the greater part of the Amendments proposed by the noble Earl; and at this period of the session, and with the knowledge that there is no prospect of an agreement upon this great number of points, I venture to suggest to the House that we shall not gain anything by an attempt to go through these Amendments seriatim. I see, therefore, no alternative but that we should respectfully intimate our desire to insist upon our Amendments. I say again, such a Motion carried by this House must not be taken as implying that there are no points upon which it is impossible for us to come to an agreement; but I do say it must be taken as implying that, taking the Government Amendments as a whole, we cannot accept their proposals, or anything like their proposals, as the basis of a settlement. I confess that the argument of time has some weight with me, as it no doubt has with many of your Lordships; but I, for one, say that if I saw the slightest prospect of arriving at an amicable solution of this question I would gladly prolong the session into the next year, and far into the next year. But I can see no reason for taking that step unless we have in sight the possibility of coming to terms. These
  1382
  Amendments, I fear, hopelessly bar the way to such an arrangement; and therefore, with the most profound regret, I stand here to move the resolution the terms of which I have already mentioned—namely, "That this House do insist upon its Amendments."
  Moved, 'That this House do insist upon its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the House has listened to a very clear statement of the views of the noble Marquess and of the conclusion at which he has arrived—that it is necessary to remit the Bill to the House of Commons once more in the form in which your Lordships originally sent it down. I am in complete agreement with the noble Marquess as to everything he said about the private communications which have been passing between the different sides of the House during the last day or two. Neither he nor I need have alluded to them at all, but for the fact that they have become public property through what are known as "the usual channels of communication"; and although the statements which we have seen of the course of what I must not call a conference are not strictly accurate, yet they are sufficiently public property for us to have no hesitation in alluding to them here. The only inference that the public is entitled to draw is that the Amendments which I have placed upon the Paper do not satisfy noble Lords opposite, and from that fact it is not difficult to conclude what is actually required by them.
  These Amendments are to be rejected in globo, and the Bill is to be sent back to the House of Commons. I deliberately refrain from indulging in the rather obvious tu quoque that you are doing to the House of Commons what the House of Commons did to you. I think the noble Marquess made out, in the circumstances, a reasonable case for doing what he proposes to do. The alternative would be to take the Amendments seriatim; and there is no doubt, in view of the fact

  1383
  that it has been found impossible to come, I am afraid, even near to an agreement on more than one matter in the Bill, that course would involve a waste of time from which at this season of the year the mind naturally recoils. Therefore I am perfectly willing to believe that it is in an entirely businesslike spirit that your Lordships send the Bill back in this way, and although I admit that the circumstances were not identical, yet I assert that it was in a businesslike spirit that the House of Commons sent back the Amendments to your Lordships in globo.
  It is too much to expect that the Paper circulated in my name this morning can have been carefully studied by all of your Lordships. The form in which the Amendments are treated is difficult to follow for those who have not a perfect acquaintance with the Bill; and probably it will be in conformity with the wishes of the House if I state the general effect of the Amendments. But I desire to correct at once an error into which the noble Marquess seems to have fallen. He spoke of my "passing over" certain Amendments "in silence." It must be assumed that we concur in the retention of every Amendment as to which I do not move that your Lordships shall not insist upon it. I am sure the noble Marquess will not wish to misrepresent our attitude, but it obviously would not be fair to draw no distinction between Amendments of that kind and Amendments upon which we actually move the non-insistence. I am not going to run through the whole of the Bill, but there are one or two important subjects, rather than clauses, to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. As regards the Amendment of Clause 1, on the subject of religious instruction, it is perfectly true that we move to disagree with that Amendment. But at the same time I am bound to say that I do not think that the Amendment of itself would have offered an insuperable obstacle to an agreement between the two parties, or that it was impossible to find a form of words which in some degree might have met the wishes of noble Lords opposite without dictating to the local education authorities upon a matter in which, it is only right to remember, they have exercised an absolute discretion for the past thirty-six years.
  1384
  I pass to the facilities under Clause 3 I desire to deal with the points raised by the noble Marquess. It must always be remembered that we have never attempted to conceal the fact that one of the main principles of our Bill is that these schools should be undenominational schools as compared with Clause 4 schools. One difficulty that was raised is the difficulty attempted to be met by the Duke of Devonshire's Amendment. That Amendment, with regard to the taking over of schools for the purpose of Clause 3, left to the Commissioners complete discretion in saying that those schools must be taken over; but they were to be guided by the wishes of the parents with regard to the religious education of the children. In our opinion that went too far. We could not help seeing that, if the wishes of the parents were to be taken as paramount in this matter, there would in practically every case be a certain number of parents who would express a wish with regard to the religious education of their children, with the ultimate result that a very large number of schools which could just scrape through the ordeal of being pronounced structurally suitable would be forcibly taken over, although it could not be said that they were needed for the education of the district, in any other sense except that they supplied a denominational want.
  Consequently we proposed an alternative method for dealing with the matter. What we proposed was this—that where an order is made requiring the local education authority to give facilities, and the Commissioners are satisfield that the school is structurally suitable and is required or is likely to be required for providing a sufficient number of school places, then an order may be made. I draw particular attention to the words "is required or likely to be required." They are intended to meet a difficulty raised by the most rev. Primate. He said that there are towns in which there are a number of Church schools but also a number of council schools with a large proportion of vacant places. The school authorities, foreseeing the probability of the growth of their towns, built at one time schools with more places than were at the moment required; and if the local authority wanted to prevent these Church

  1385
  schools from being taken over as facility schools they might fill up the council schools with the children from the Church schools. That is a point which we felt might in fairness be met, and we thought that it would be reasonable on the part of the Commission to say to the local authority, "It is true you have these vacant places, but you have deliberately provided them with the idea of gradually filling them up as your town increases; it is not reasonable to extinguish these Church schools in order, so to speak, that you should fill your own up by a large windfall of children who only come on your hands through the operation of this Act; so we take into account your original purpose in making this excessive number of places, but we do not treat these places as being accommodation in the sense in which accommodation is ordinarily described; therefore these being good schools, we oblige you to take them over." In our opinion that was a substantial concession, and would have met a large proportion of those cases of denominational schools which did not come under Clause 4. Whether that would have met the views of the noble Duke I cannot say; but it is evident that it is one of the things which noble Lords opposite did not consider to be a sufficient concession, though in our opinion it was a very real one.
  Now I come to the vexed question of the teacher. I will read you the clause we propose about the teacher in these ordinary facility schools—
  "(2) The local education authority may, if they think fit, permit an assistant teacher to give any religious instruction of a special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in any school in which facilities for that instruction (although not extended facilities) are afforded under this Act, provided that the authority shall not give that permission in any school in a parish in a rural district which is the only public elementary school in the parish, except in cases where such a school provides accommodation for more than 250 children, and the authority think that the circumstances of the school justify the permission."
  Your Lordships will observe that the whole matter was left absolutely, as we were bound to leave it, to the discretion of the local authority, that only the assistant teacher could give the teaching, and that the smaller rural schools were to be ex-
  1386
  cluded. We did not, and do not, say that there is any magic about the number 250. We find that if the number 250 were left there are in England and Wales 410 large country schools that would get the benefit of the teaching of these assistant teachers. If 200 were taken as the limit—and I suppose we should not have lost the Bill for 200—altogether 765 schools would obtain the advantage of that teaching. If that is not a substantial concession, and one which we gave, I confess, with great searchings of heart, it seems to me to be very difficult to say what can be called a concession at all. Noble Lords opposite demand this privilege for all schools, of whatever size, both in town and country—that every teacher should be allowed to give the instruction, if he is willing, and that it should be a statutory obligation on the authority to allow it to be given. We thought that what the most rev. Primate and noble Lords asked for was that the facilities should be real in the sense that it should not be possible to say, "Here is a large urban school in which it is really a mockery to offer these facilities, because we cannot find volunteers to give it."
  The noble Marquess opposite said that the teachers demanded this permission. I think the noble Marquess is going far beyond the mark in making that assertion. No doubt a certain number of teachers demand it; but the statement has not been contradicted that among the whole body of teachers there is a majority who would prefer not to receive the privilege. The interest of the whole of this business to me consists in this fact: taken in conjunction with the previous Amendment it practically means that any Church school could demand to be taken over; it simply means that the majority of this House mean these Clause 3 schools to be absolutely denominational schools. You cannot get away from that fact; that is the absolutely unbridgable gulf that lies between noble Lords and ourselves, and it is one over which we have been, as is clear, unable to find any passage. After all the sole difference between these schools as noble Lords want to make them in the Bill and the schools as they are now, consists, on the one hand, that rent is paid for them by the authority and the

  1387
  authority undertakes the repairs, and on the other hand, they have to run the risk of not getting a Church teacher. If they do, there is apparently to be no difference in future in the conduct of the schools. All I can say is that this only shows how perfectly hopeless it was from the first to attempt to come to any agreement on this subject. To vote money for such a purpose as that is a deliberate mockery. To ask the local authority possibly to increase their rates, to ask the Exchequer for a grant of £1,000,000 in order to carry out a transaction of that kind, is nothing lesthan a farce.
  I come now to Clause 4. The noble Marquess spoke of the small number of schools under Clause 4 as we intended to leave them; but noble Lords opposite made them anything but exceptions. They made them almost the rule, and I think it cannot be disputed that even the Amendments I have placed on the Paper, some of which, in my opinion, go very far indeed, add largely to the number of these schools. What is the effect of these Amendments? We have altogether given up the restriction of the urban area, to say nothing about the 5,000 limit. We have tried as far as we could to meet the point about the small number of recalcitrant parents who could prevent a school from being made a Clause 4 school at all. On that point I should like to say a word. I am not sure that the noble Marquess did not himself fall into the error of saying that these parents could prevent the school from becoming a Clause 4 school. Ten parents could not demand to be accommodated in that particular school. Not only would the parents have to object to the teaching, but the local authority would have, even though accommodation existed elsewhere, deliberately to keep them there. That, of course, is a very different matter from saying that ten parents could spoil a Clause 4 school.
  Then we gave a prior right of admission to children belonging to the denomination—in my opinion a very real concession indeed. We gave the parents' committee, and as regards that committee we gave a concession of the most far-reaching character, and one which I am bound to say we should have found, in my belief, considerable difficulty in getting our
  1388
  supporters to accept. The provision to be inserted would read—
  "In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act the local education authority shall appoint persons acceptable to the parents' committee to be teachers in the school, and for that purpose shall consult with the committee as to such appointment."
  If I am asked exactly how we reconcile the words of that clause with the general rule of "no tests for teachers," I confess that I am in a difficulty. I am bound to admit that it must be, owing to the very special circumstances, treated as an exception to that excellent rule. We gave an appeal to the parents against the refusal to institute a Clause 4 school or against a refusal to continue it. That, I think, disposes of the argument of the noble Marquess that we leave the word "may" instead of inserting the word "shall." If you give an appeal in each case it does not appear to be very important whether the word "may" or "shall" stands part of the Bill.
  We gave way on the number of four-fifths. I have placed the number three-fourths on the Paper, but I do not know that we would have lost the Bill over the question of three-fourths. But we did stand out, and we should stand out to the last, for the necessity that it should be a proportion of the whole number of parents, and not merely of those who go to the poll. The noble Marquess, owing to the point which I mentioned earlier, fell into an error as to the teacher being compelled to give religious teaching. He did not see the Amendment on the Paper. As a matter of fact it is not one of those Amendments with which I would ask your Lordships to disagree; and therefore I assume that the House will insist upon it, and therefore we must be taken as agreeing to the Amendment that the local education authority must permit the teachers employed in the school to give the teaching. In addition to that we gave the possibility of what I hope would be a complete system of inspection in all transferred schools, and we gave up, some of us unwillingly, the clause which made it not necessary for children to attend school during the hours of religious instruction.

  1389
  It is perfectly true we did not give way, and we never should have given way under any circumstances, on the absolute right to be taken over claimed by any structurally efficient voluntary school. We never could have given way to the demand of noble Lords opposite about the teachers. We could not give way—having made these denominational schools, as we think, so numerous and so liberally provided for—to any invasion of the council schools by denominational education. We were not prepared, and certainly never should have been prepared under any circumstances, to give way to what the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) proposed—the absolutely indefinite multiplication of Clause 4 schools, including possibly some the smallest village schools in the country.
  And on the question of Wales, I can only say that noble Lords opposite treated our proposition with mere contempt. They altogether refused our invitation to make some counter-proposition with regard to what we did and do consider to be the fair claims of Wales to some separate sort of treatment in this matter; and consequently I am unable to agree with the insistence of the omission of the Welsh clause.
  This is how the matter stands. I have gone through all the principal Amendments, and I am content to leave it to the judgment of all moderate and reasonable people whether they do not represent a very large scale of concession indeed. There are, no doubt, a certain number of blind partisans and a certain number of amiable zealots who would accept nothing except that which appeared to them not merely reasonable but satisfying their own peculiar wishes. To such I make no kind of appeal. But I do appeal to the common sense of moderate people, both inside and outside this House, as to whether the concessions which I have indicated would not have formed a compromise acceptable to the vast majority of the people of this country. All I know is that in attempting to arrive at this conclusion we have strained the loyalty of many of our most valued supporters almost to the point of snapping. For all I know it has
  1390
  absolutely snapped in more than one case; I only hope it will be restored.
  I frankly confess that there is more concession in these Amendments than personally I like; but as a member of the Government I of course not merely accept but advance them, and I believe that is in the main the attitude of the Members of our Party. Many of them think we have gone too far in conceding so much, but they are prepared to accept it. But only on one condition—the only condition on which we could have gone so far as we have, and that is that it should be as part of a definite settlement and accepted as such by the Party opposite. I hope no noble Lord or right rev. Prelate is under the illusion that these concessions are, so to speak, thrown down on the floor of this House, to be picked up whenever the Party opposite may condescend to stoop for them. That, my Lords, would be a most serious illusion.
  One of the reasons why I specially regret the failure of this Bill is this. After all, my Lords, there is a tide in the affairs of Bills which, if you take it, may lead you into the habour, but if you do not take it the tide does not always recur. I am unwilling to prophesy in political matters, because there is nothing so dangerous; but I should be very much surprised if the time ever comes when either I myself or anybody else is found urging the claims of this identical Bill, including these Amendments of mine, in this place. I should be very sorry to prophesy that anybody in the immediate future would be found urging any Bill on this subject. All one can say is that these special proposals are gone and cleared away. As to the reappearance of any of them we can say nothing.
  It only remains for me to thank the House as a whole for the remarkable consideration which has been extended to me personally all through these debates and to thank my noble friends behind me, both official and unofficial, for the admirable measure of support which they gave me during the progress of the Bill. Noble Lords and right rev. Prelates have chosen war in this matter rather than peace. Your Lordships have chosen to open the sluice-gates and to

  1391
  let free the flood of sectarian unrest and religious passion. What that flood may destroy and sweep away in its course I am not going to attempt to predict. But I think it exceedingly likely that during the coming months a great many very harsh things will be said on both sides, and I am afraid some harsh things may be done. Our task is simply to administer as we may the existing law. But this I do say in conclusion, that we on this side of the House, and His Majesty's Government, whatever the consequences may be, deliberately refuse to accept one ounce of the burden of responsibility for the rejection of this measure. We leave the whole of it on the shoulders of noble Lords opposite and the right reverend Bench, who have chosen to wreck the Bill.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am not going to follow the two eminent speakers who have addressed us into the particulars of the Amendments which now stand upon the Paper in connection with this Bill. Their speeches have been most lucid and have brought out the points upon which, to my great disappointment, agreement has been found impossible. Still less, of course, do I feel it to be appropriate to enter into the constitutional questions, if we may call them so, which have arisen as regards the relations of the two Houses and the action of each in this matter. I desire rather to say a few words about the general situation which has been brought about. Perhaps your Lordships will the more readily pardon me for doing so, as I was prevented, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, from being in your Lordships' House either on the Report stage or on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  I speak to-night with an intense feeling of disappointment. I had, I own, looked forward, I will not say confidently, but at least hopefully, to a different conclusion of our long discussions, a conclusion or settlement which must in any case have been a very hard one for the Church of England and for the workers in her schools, but which still, I trusted, might take such a form that we could accept it rather than let the intolerable, hateful strife go on.
  1392
  For such a solution, my Lords, I hoped against hope; and I have, in so far as in me lay, striven even to the point of putting to a test the confidence of some of my best friends, and this because I was, and am, profoundly convinced that, in view of the largest issues in English, life, it was desirable to secure such a settlement if only the conditions attainable should be such as to satisfy the principles of fairness and justice.
  Nothing can, my Lords, in the long run be gained by the removal of one grievance, great or small, merely to establish another, both greater in its range, and, as I think, heavier in its incidence. When this Bill was before us last August I was one of those who urged, contrary again, to the advice of not a few friends, that we ought to read it a second time, with the view of subsequently amending it, and that its ultimate fate ought to depend upon the acceptance by the Government, substantially and after joint discussion, of such Amendments as this House should deem to be essential. I did that in the interest of a possible settlement, notwithstanding that I deplored very much both details and principles that underlay the measure. From that time onwards, if I may refer to myself, I have striven, so far as I was concerned, to bring about some arrangement which would be honourable or, at least, tolerable, to all parties concerned.
  Until within these last few hours I was hopeful; but it has proved to be in vain; for unless the Government could have seen its way to meet us in what I am convinced are reasonable demands, on certain large and important questions, and, above all, on the question of teachers, we had better—I say it reluctantly—we had better, whatever the risks and disadvantages, have no Bill. A Bill, my Lords, marred by blemishes so grave could be no real settlement, and, therefore, ought not, as it seems to me, to have been in that form even desired by His Majesty's Government themselves. You cannot conduce to a settlement by removing grievances and disadvantages, acutely felt—whether reasonable or not is a matter of comparative indifference—but acutely felt by one section of the nation, on to the shoulders

  1393
  of another section of the nation which must feel and resent them not less acutely. That is one thing which, speaking for myself, though I am sure I may associate others with me, I have borne in mind throughout the whole of our debates and proposals. But that is not all.
  Quite apart from questions of grievance to teachers or contributors and donors, or to the denominations who have such large interests in the highest and deepest part of the work of our elementary schools, quite apart from all that, we have tried to keep before our eyes a clear vision of the purpose and aim of it all—the best upbringing of little children, the best upbuilding of their | character, the best furnishing, of them to be useful Christian citizens of a Christian land. To that result we have looked throughout, and to that practical end we have striven, in the proposals we have made and in the Amendments, which we have supported. We ask for no privilege or advantage for one section, or one denomination, over another. We want, and have pressed for, absolutely equal opportunities—subject, of course, to the ordinary conditions of our common life—to be open to all.
  What has the House of Lords done or tried to do by its Amendments? Never, it seems to me, was there a case in which wider misconception prevailed. I do no think the reason is very far to seek. The complexity, the technicality, the difficulty of this whole subject have daunted most people from even trying to follow in detail what has been done, More than nine men out of ten are at the mercy of the partisan speaker or writer who summarizes for them in his own airy way what he calls the gist or substance of what has happened. Something has been done during the last few days to diminish that difficulty, but the difficulty is there still. A prominent speaker in the House of Commons a few days ago began his speech, I think, somewhat as follows—
  "The Archbishop of Canterbury, in speaking at an earlier stage of this Bill, said that he and his friends did not propose to make or to support wrecking Amendments,"
  and he went on—
  "Now everybody knows what has happened since."
  1394
  My Lords, that is exactly what I think is not the case. Everybody does not know what has happened since; because it is exceedingly difficult to arrive at it without a far more prolonged and careful study than, I will not say one man out of ten, but one man out of a hundred will give to a matter so intricate as this is. I ask your Lordships to judge by your own experience of intercourse with friends in Parliament or out of it, and to say whether you have not found that a very large proportion of these people honestly confess that they have not been able to follow the matter in detail. That is the case; and I have looked back—on the suggestion of the speech, perhaps to which I have referred—to my own words on the Second Reading of this Bill in order to see whether during these long discussions one has inadvertently, in the course of the controversy, drifted away from the position one originally held and has become either stiffer or less reasonable than one tried to be at the outset. I have found nothing of the sort.
  I apologise for referring to a speech of my own, but it was a speech to which a great deal of friendly reference was made by supporters of the Bill at the time it was delivered. At that time I endeavoured to say quite frankly what were the large lines upon which, as it seemed to me, it would be necessary to amend this Bill if it were ultimately to prove a measure, I will not say acceptable, but even tolerable to those whom it affected. I asked that we should have some security that every Christian parent sending his child to an elementary school might count upon—not hope for it, but count upon it—that in the school curriculum some opportunity would be given for religious teaching. That has not been acceded to by his Majesty's Government, although we have heard words to-night which tell us that it might not have been impossible to have gained that point.
  Then—perhaps the most important point of all—I pressed that if those facilities in transferred schools on which rightly so much stress was laid by the Government were to be a reality, at all events in our larger schools, it was essential that the teacher who should volunteer to do so should be allowed to give the teaching where it could be

  1395
  done consistently with the general working and management of the school. Were that not done, I said then, and I feel it as strongly still, that the offer of facilities for denominational teaching would, in our larger schools at least, become almost a matter of empty form.
  In the speech of the noble Earl to which we have just listened I was surprised to hear him say that, if the teachers had been allowed thus to volunteer, the transferred schools would practically have been almost exactly the same as they are now. That seems to me to be an example of a misconception and misunderstanding which has throughout the discussion underlain a great deal of what has been said by the supporters of this measure. They have failed to realise how extensive, how far-reaching, how terribly severe is the sweep that is made of the character which has belonged hitherto to our elementary schools under the management of those who have hitherto had control of them.
  What becomes of the appointment of the teachers? That is taken away from us in any case. The whole management of the school in its ordinary daily work is taken away from us in any case. The "facilities" are to extend to two days only, and the lack of elasticity that would result as regards the ordinary working of religious teaching is evident at once to anyone who is an expert in school management. Please recollect, my Lords, that I am not objecting to these changes; we accepted them, we have agreed to them. But to tell us now that to allow the teacher to give the teaching in these schools two days a week when he volunteers to do it, and it is convenient to the rest of the management of the school—to tell us that this is to leave the school exactly as it now is, is to misconceive the whole effect of the Bill.
  Further, in the speech alluded to, I urged that in the special schools arranged for under Clause 4 the arrangements should not be fettered by such conditions as should make their attainment or their permanence in many cases practically impossible. To some extent, I fully admit, the noble Earl and his colleagues have gone some way to meet us; but there remain
  1396
  a number of difficulties of that sort which I confess would, in my judgment, reduce to a very small number indeed the schools under Church of England management which would have been able to find their place under Clause 4.
  Then, further, if you enact, as you do—and I am not complaining of it, on the contrary I welcome it—that every parent in England shall have within his reach the opportunity of sending his children to a school in which the teaching shall be of the simpler kind which he may desire, there does seem to be, if you transform the character of the existing schools in order to bring that about, a corresponding responsibility on the other side to endeavour in some way or other to meet the difficulty which will arise and grow to an intensity not yet adequately realised, the intensity of feeling of wrong and loss on the part of the parents equally keen and earnest on the other side, who will have no corresponding opportunity for their children in districts in which there are council schools and nothing else.
  These, together with some reasonable security that a fit denominational school should be able to count on being taken over, were the proposals I tried to foreshadow as those which I should support. Will any fair man say these were wrecking proposals? They were within the four corners of the Bill in every sense of the word. They were not wrecking Amendments in any way that that word can be properly applied. They do not lie outside the principles of the Bill. These form the substance of the Amendments we tried to make. In a measure so long, so complex, and dealing with such a mass of administrative details, there were a great many other things needing consideration and suggesting Amendment, and needing it all the more because very many of them had never been discussed in the other House of Parliament at all. We did think it right—I thought it respectful in every sense to the House of Commons—that we should go through those parts of the Bill carefully; and I think the Government recognised that we were right in so doing by themselves placing on the Paper no small number of the Amendments with which it was sent

  1397
  down to the other House for consideration there.
  It may possibly interest your Lordships to know what were the sources from which the various Amendments emanated which found a place in the Bill as it went down. As I reckon them there were eighty-three Amendments in the Bill, leaving aside drafting or purely consequential Amendments, which were forty three in number. Of these Amendments the noble Earl the Lord President was responsible for nearly one-third—that is to say, twenty-six out of eighty-three; and, taking in the drafting Amendments, he was responsible for almost one-half. The front Opposition bench was responsible for.twenty, independent Opposition peers for twenty-two, Roman Catholic peers for seven, the Episcopal bench for seven, most of which, I think, have been accepted by the Government, and one Amendment emanated from an independent peer on the Ministerial side. Thus the Government were responsible for 31 per cent. of the Amendments, apart altogether from thirty-seven other drafting Amendments which were carried on the Motion of Lord Crewe.
  It is constantly said outside the House, and not infrequently in both Houses, that the Amendments we introduced were contrary to the principles for which the country declared at the general election. These principles were two, and two only—the principle of full popular control and the principle of the freedom of teachers as such from tests. If it can be shown that any one of our Amendments really directly traverses either the one or the other of those two principles I, at least, should not be prepared to support that Amendment. But there are, of course, many different ways of giving effect to those two principles, and of necessity no declaration was given to the country before the general election as to how this thing was going to be done, and I urge that it is completely misleading for anybody to say that this Bill as it stood ever had the imprimatur of the constituencies of England.
  I do not want to dwell again on the principle of no tests for teachers. I think we have all accepted that, and I have only striven
  1398
  to draw attention to the distinction, which is constantly overlooked, between the appointment of a teacher as an once of a school and the appointment of a man who is to give religious teaching. As regards the former, I am prepared to admit that no test shall be imposed; but as regards the assigning to a man or woman the duty of giving religious teaching, I am literally unable to understand the position of those who say that those responsbile for the choosing of the person to give that teaching should be prohibited from finding out the qualifications of those who are to give it.
  I turn to the principle of full popular control. Surely there is a field for the widest possible misunderstanding as to the meaning of the words, and a wholly novel claim as to what they really mean has been authoritatively put forward within the last few days by no less a person than the Minister for Education. He said in the House of Commons last Monday—
  "In all those thickly-populated districts, those places where the mind of England is made up, those bodies"—
  (he was speaking of county, city, and borough councils—)
  "have become infected with a lofty ambition. They are determined to municipalise education from top to bottom; to get hold of complete control over all the machinery of education from the infant school to the University."
  If these words are taken literally they would imply that Eton was to be under the control of the County Council of Bucks, Harrow under the County Council of Middlesex, and Liverpool University under the control of the council of the borough. I do not suppose that the words were literally intended; but they seem to me to describe a demand on the part of the local education authority which, if it was ever made, and I have never heard any authority make it, is so startling, so novel, that I desire to call attention to it now. It seems to me to ignore in the very strangest way the place of the chief paymaster in the schools, which is the State as represented by the Houses of Parliament. Has the country ever asked that such complete autocracy, such complete omnipotence shall be placed in the hands of the local education authority without

  1399
  control by Parliament as regards any of the details?
  But let us suppose that you do recognise that claim. I ask, do you, as a matter of fact, try to grant it? You do nothing of the sort. Under the Bill and under previous legislation these authorities are absolutely prohibited from exercising the freedom claimed for them except in one direction. On the one side is a barbed wire fence of the closest sort. On the other is the open country into which they can go as far as they will. The barbed wire side is that which may seem to lead to denominational teaching of any kind, direct or indirect. The other is the direction which may lead the school away from religious teaching altogether. In that direction they are left perfectly free. Under the Cowper-Temple clause they may grant no facilities for any form of religious teaching save one, and in the transferred schools, which you are now placing under them, there is to be no power on their part to allow the head teacher to give the special teaching, and no power in a rural area to allow any teacher to give it at all. I am not asking at this moment whether it is a right decision or a wrong one, but I put it alongside the claim which is made for autocracy on the part of the local authority. Is that carrying out the definition laid down by Mr. Birrell? Is that real liberty? To claim it as the giving of absolute freedom to the municipalities seems to me unmeaning.
  Every year there is published by the Education Office the Code for that year. It has the force of an Act of Parliament, and it bristles at every turn with restrictions on the local authority. That does not correspond with the claim which is being made so loudly that the local education authority must be absolutely free. Every public elementary school serves a national as well as a local purpose, and the State is the chief paymaster, and I maintain that the nation in Parliament has the right to lay down the leading principles of educational policy to which the local authority ought to conform. That most local education authorities welcome such guidance I am certain. I yield to no one in my admiration for the way in which
  1400
  most of our local authorities, many of them recently under quite extraordinary difficulties, have done their work, and I do not think we shall conduce to that; work being better done by following the lines which the Minister of Education suggested.
  This question of the teacher, on which so much turns, is not a, detail but part of a very big principle. You make that, vital question upon which will depend the efficiency or inefficiency of your "Clause 3" facilities depend altogether on the discretion of the local education authorities. There is nothing to prevent any municipal authority from saying—"We intend that there shall be no teacher here giving the facilities teaching under Clause 3." They may do so from no malice prepense but simply from the utterly mistaken idea that by so refusing they will be avoiding worry and strife. They may say simply—" We do not desire that any teacher under our control shall give that teaching;" and the moment that is said your facilities, on which you rest your claim to have acted fairly towards Church schools, are swept away and gone for all practical purposes.
  No educational system is truly representative of our national life unless if regards within due limits the claim of (1) the nation, (2) the locality, (3) the parent, and (4) the Christian community to which the parents belong. Our business as legislators is to assign to each, of these its proper weight and influence, and any attempted solution which ignores the claim of anyone of them is foredoomed to failure. This year the English people have come to realise, as I think they never did before, the complexity and difficulty of this problem. I think the Bill fails to realise that, fails certainly to recognise the depth of the attachment felt by hundreds of thousands of families to schools carried on with, I think, universal approval in close association with a great religious body.
  The Bill proposes through a false idea of freedom to impose on thousands of teachers an intolerable restraint in their teaching of religion. The Bill ignores the conviction of a vast majority of Englishmen and women that (with due

  1401
  protection of conscience, on which we all insist) religious teaching ought to form part of the regular work in school hours of every elementary school. I admit that after your Lordships had amended the Bill so as to bring that teaching within school hours the Government have not asked for that Amendment to be struck out; but as the Bill came to this House it omitted that large and vital principle in the carrying on of religious education. During these long discussions that great principle has stood out more clearly than before.
  Deeply do I regret our failure to reach an agreement on matters of such vital importance to our national life. The earnest effort which certainly very many of us had made to secure an educational settlement has to my intense sorrow proved ineffective. I do most strongly protest against the words spoken by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council when he said that we had chosen war rather than peace. Those words were for him strangely unfair. I desire with all my heart peace rather than war.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I think I ought to state that those words had no personal application to the most rev. Primate. Quite the contrary.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I accept my noble friend's assurance. I think, however, that there are occasions on which there are more important issues even than peace. A great utterance was made by one of the most conspicuous men now alive a week or two ago—the President of the United States. In his message he used these words—
  "Peace is normally a great good, and normally it coincides with righteousness; but it is righteousness and not peace which should bind the conscience of a nation as it should bind the conscience of an individual."
  I think those words have a profound significance in the present controversy if by righteousness we mean, as I should mean, the principles of fairness and of justice to those who have laboured long and hard in a cause which has been nearer to their hearts than any other thing on earth.
  1402
  I should like to end with a word of hope. Something, I think, has been gained. People think about this more than they did; and, so thinking, we are being led, as I believe—not now, I know not when—to a solution which shall be larger and more true than this attempted solution would have been had we attained it. To such a solution I think we shall some day come, a solution which shall wound no conscience, which shall meet the convictions of different sections of the community, and shall promote the religious unity of the nation—I earnestly hope that day may not be far off—by granting a full measure of religious freedom in our educational life.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I ask leave to address to the House a very few words. I have no intention of attempting to follow my noble friend behind me or the noble Earl opposite in the numerous details of this measure; still less have I any intention of following the most rev. Primate into the far wider considerations which he has introduced in the eloquent speech to which we have just listened.
  I rise solely for the purpose of making one or two observations on a much smaller point, and to say why to my very great regret I feel myself unable to concur in the course which has been recommended to us to-night on this side of the House. My noble friend referred to certain communications which it is in the knowledge of every one have been in progress during the last few days, and enumerated a very large number of subjects on which an agreement had not been arrived at and a large number of points which remained in the Bill untouched by the Amendments of the Government, to which he took strong exception. But I did not understand my noble friend to say that on any of those points but one had it been found that it was impossible that an agreement should be arrived at. I did not understand him to say that all of them had even been discussed, and I certainly.did not understand from him that it had been found that on any large number an agreement was absolutely impossible.

  1403
  It has been stated in the Press, and I think the statement of my noble friend tended to corroborate that statement, that there was one point on which agreement has been found to be absolutely impossible, and that disagreement on that one point has been so pronounced and distinct that it was useless to waste time on going into a further examination of the other points to which my noble friend referred. If that statement is correct, or has any approach to correctness, it is against the severance of communications or rupture of negotiations that I desire to protest. In my opinion a very sharp distinction exists and ought to be drawn between those provisions of the Bill which relate to the transfer of schools, such provisions as are contained in Clauses 2 and, I think, 10, 11, and 12, and those which relate to the future management of the schools which are transferred.
  As the Bill reached us it would have been entirely within the option of the local authority whether certain voluntary schools should or should not be transferred at all, and the schools which had to been taken over by the local authority would by a certain date have ceased to exist and would never have been resuscitated and would have been replaced by schools provided by the local authority. On this point we have secured very considerable concessions from the Government. We have secured that every existing voluntary school, whether it is a school for which Clause 3 or Clause 4 facilities are desired, should have an appeal from the decision of the local authority to the Commission to be appointed under the Bill, the fairness and impartiality of which have been universally recognised. I would not say that the conditions of that appeal are entirely satisfactory or entirely adequate for the protection of all existing voluntary schools; but I did not understand that upon that point the last word of the Government had been spoken, or that upon that point, or anything approaching that point, communications broke down.
  The provisions relating to the future management of transferred schools seem to me to belong to a very different category. Of the highest importance as
  1404
  some of those provisions are, they are not and cannot by their nature be of a final character, and their effect and operation can only be tested by experience of their working. Under these circumstances, they must be to a large extent, certainly to some extent, subject to future revision by Parliament. I cannot altogether agree with what fell from the Lord President of the Council when he said that if the compromise proposed by the Government had been found to be practicable, it would only have been on condition that the Bill should be taken as an agreed Bill, by which I imagine he intended that this should be a complete and final settlement of the whole question.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I think that perhaps I ought to correct the noble Duke. What I intended by that phrase was that the Opposition should be willing to drop all their substantial Amendments in consideration of the concessions offered by this side of the House.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Opposition might have dropped their Amendments, and, if a compromise had been arrived at, they would have done so. But it was not for noble Lords opposite, nor upon this side, nor within the power of this Parliament, to secure that any agreement or compromise which might be arrived at in the present session should necessarily become a permanent or a final settlement. If the rumour to which I have referred that it was on the point of the teachers in the Clause 3 schools that this suggested compromise finally broke down is true, then I say that is a point which eminently comes within the category of the second class of provisions to which I have referred. That was a provision relating to the future management of these schools, and, in my opinion, it is one of those provisions which would most probably have come up very shortly for review in another session of Parliament. I believe that both the original arrangement, and the amended arrangement proposed by the Government would have been found unsatisfactory, and in many cases so unworkable that the local authorities and the teachers themselves would have been the first to require some alteration and amendment of the clause. Therefore

  1405
  I say that insistence upon the special form of this clause was not a point on which I should have considered it necessary to impose a summary conclusion to the negotiations.
  But, be that as it may, I admit I am so impressed by the prospect of uncertainty and doubt over the future of our voluntary schools—and, indeed, over the possibility of the effective continuance of real religious teaching in our elementary schools at all in the future—thatpersonally I should have been inclined to make almost any concession in provisions which were not of an irrevocable character rather than relegate the decision of this question to another session of the present Parliament or the next which would have to deal with this subject. But I know very well the difficulties which my noble friends behind me would have had in dealing with their supporters in either House of Parliament, and, perhaps still more, in the country if they had been disposed to take my view. Considering the enormous importance which has been attached throughout these discussions to these special provisions respecting the teachers, I know it would have been very difficult for them to have made any concession or shown any sign of yielding upon this point. I have received, as no doubt your Lordships have, a vast number of letters, memorials, and representations upon this subject; and I acknowledge that not one out of ten—I should say nearer, not one in a hundred has been in the direction of conciliation, but rather in the direction of refusing any concession. I am, however, not at all certain that after a very short time has elapsed, when these more or less irresponsible advisers have had greater experience of the results which will follow the loss of this Bill, they may not regret that they have not allowed their representatives in this House a freer hand and a larger discretion. But great as the difficulties have been, none the less I feel myself obliged to raise this protest, unavailing and ineffectual as I know it to be, and belated as I am afraid I must confess it, against the decision which has been arrived at to stop communications, with the possibility of compromise upon other points, upon this solitary question of the teachers.
  1406
  I do not know whether we shall ever see another Education Bill in this Parliament. If we should, I trust we shall be able to approach it with a clearer perception of the great and marked distinction, to which I have called attention, between those provisions which must necessarily be permanent and irrevocable, and those other provisions which can be subjected to revision in the light of experience. Before I sit down I should like to say how fully and entirely I concur in some of the words uttered by the most rev. Primate towards the conclusion of his speech. I feel, as he feels, the amount of mischief which has been done by the large use that has been made, with imperfect consideration, of the enunciation of great principles. Almost every question that has been raised has been referred to such principles as that of public control, of no tests for teachers, and of the rights of parents. These are principles to which all of us are able to give a qualified acceptance; but, unfortunately, in enunciating those principles we all of us attach to them a totally different significance.
  In my opinion, our educational system never has been founded upon any great, wide, and generally-accepted principles. I doubt very much whether it ever will be. If this Bill had been passed, either in the form in which it was originally introduced or as amended by this House, it certainly would not have conformed to any of the principles which have been laid down. I wish we could have been more unprincipled. If we could only have recognised this Bill as merely a set of regulations, a set of practical, perhaps even they might be called empirical regulations, for the future management of our public elementary schools, if we could have concentrated our attention on whether those regulations were consistent with the efficiency of education and with a sense of justice on the part of all parties concerned, and omitted all consideration of principles, I think it would have been possible to have made greater progress. I hope we shall hear less about principles and more about those practical regulations of which an Education Bill must always ultimately consist.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think your Lordships will sympathise with me when I say that I am as sorry to find myself in opposition to the noble Duke who has just sat down as he was to find himself in opposition to my noble friend behind me. I rise mainly to say this, that, not being a Party man—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh!
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I think I may frankly say I am not a Party man. I have been drummed out of the Party. At any rate, I ask your Lordships to believe that in all I have said in this matter I have been entirely free from Party. I have simply regarded it as an educationist, and as one wishing for fair play and justice for the voluntary schools. I must really ask the House and the public to believe that in this matter I am not animated by Party; and I claim that this House has not been animated by Party. It is not fair to say that the action which has been taken by the Opposition leaders has been taken under the influence of any single individual, however powerful. Each Member on this side of the House has had a full opportunity of expressing his opinion, and it is almost a unanimous opinion at which we have arrived. I may say this, in reply to my noble friend who has just sat down, that, if his view had been taken, and if the Amendment with regard to the teachers had not been pressed, I should not have hesitated to take the same course which he has taken in the opposite sense, and I should have come forward and said that I did not see my way to agree with those who had come to the conclusion that the Bill could be passed without that Amendment.
  The Amendment with regard to the teachers, though my noble friend does not attach the greatest importance to it, seems to me to be absolutely of the essence of the case. No one could have listened to the most rev. Primate without seeing how certain that is. It lies at the bottom of the whole case. In his very ingenious argument, to which I listened with great interest, my noble friend made a distinction between Amendments dealing with the future and those dealing with the present. The noble Duke would have
  1408
  concentrated all the necessary influence upon securing Amendments which would ensure voluntary schools being taken over, because that was a matter of present interest. If I understood him rightly, he would have postponed all that related to the future management of the schools. If that had been done, what would have happened in the interval? All the teaching by the existing teachers would have been stopped, the whole of the religious instruction would have got out of gear, and the whole of the present generation of children would have been deprived, or might have been deprived, of the instruction which they now enjoy. Would that have been a solution? Would that have been a condition of things which could have been contemplated with equanimity? From the very commencement it has always been certain that the point on which it was absolutely necessary to insist was that existing teachers should be allowed to continue to teach.
  Nothing could be more extraordinary than the contention of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council that the Clause 3 schools would, with your Lordships' Amendments, have become denominational schools. Let noble Lords remember that the management would be entirely different. No stress has been laid upon the fact that three of the managers would have been appointed by the local authority and three by the minor local authority. Therefore the whole of the management would lie in hands that might, if I may say so, be manipulated in order to prevent the leave being given to the teachers. That is a point which I do not think has been sufficiently insisted upon. At this stage, however, I do not wish to go into details, but I demur from the main point in my noble friend's speech that the teachers' question was the only point at issue. It was not the only point. My noble friend is misinformed if he imagines that with the teachers' question settled all other differences would have been settled. I have not been present at the conferences to which allusion has been made, but I have heard a great deal about them, and I believe it is acknowledged by the Lord President of the Council himself and by his friends that

  1409
  the chasm was much wider than the one created by the question of the teachers. I am certain that no member of His Majesty's Government will get up and say that there was a prospect of settlement in this matter if the question of the teachers had not been pressed. It is o supreme importance that no mistake of that kind should be made in the country, and that it should be known that the question of teachers was not the only one at issue.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: As the noble Viscount has asked that Question, I have no hesitation in saying that from the moment the negotiations began I had not the faintest expectation that they would meet with any success.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Ah! The noble Earl knew the minds of his colleagues. We now see the spirit in which they approached the conference.
  *THE EARL OF CKEWE: I cannot allow that statement to pass. It was the attitude of noble Lords opposite very early in the negotiations that made me come to that conclusion.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: It was the attitude of the noble Earl and his friends which very early in that conference gave to noble Lords on this side of the House the conviction that it was perfectly useless to hope for agreement. [Cheers, and Ministerial cries of "Divide," and Opposition cries of "Order."]
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I would ask my noble friends behind me not to interrupt the noble Viscount. He is a man so distinguished that he is entitled to be heard with respect and in silence by your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I do not claim a hearing on any personal grounds, but I really think this is a very serious matter and one of extreme importance. I maintain, and my noble friend opposite has not contradicted me, that it was not only on the teachers' question that difference existed. I do not think the noble Duke would have been entitled to say, even if that were the case, that the negotiations ought to have been carried on;
  1410
  but I maintain that the chasm was much wider and that no efforts on the part of noble Lords on this side of the House could have produced a settlement acceptable in view of the attitude taken by His Majesty's Government. I give the Government credit for wishing to give more, but their supporters would not let them.
  I will not intrude any further observations upon the House except to say this, that there has been in the House of Commons and in a certain portion of the Press a tone of menace with reference to Church schools which I greatly deplore. It has not found much expression in the courteous speeches of the Lord President of the Council, but in the concluding words of the noble Earl I did detect a tone of menace when he said that no doubt harsh things would be done. What does that mean? One cannot read much, perhaps, into those five simple words; but when one sees that it has been said out of doors that by administrative action pressure is to be brought on the schools in order to secure by administration that which Parliament will not grant, then I think those words derive some significance. Surely it cannot be the intention of His Majesty's Government to say that by administrative action they will do, because of the rejection of this Bill, what otherwise they would not have thought it necessary to do; that because of the rejection of this Bill they will put such penal pressure on voluntary schools that those schools will be squeezed out. I want to know: Is sectarian animosity to be enthroned in the Board of Education in order to carry out the views of a Parliamentary majority? However that may be, the Church and the denominations must face the difficulty and must look those threats in the face. The Church, at all events for the present, retains its 12,000 schools, and it will be the business of the Church, by increased exertion, by increased enthusiasm, and by increased sacrifices, if necessary, to see that she keeps the same position of respect and confidence which she has established in the country, so that when fresh attacks come it will be found that the Church has not been asleep, but has lone its utmost, in these troublous times,

  1411
  to maintain the schools which have been founded by the exertions of the past, and which will be continued by similar exertions in the future.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I do not wish to detain the House for more than two minutes. I should be very sorry, however, if the debate closed without my expressing the sincere feeling of myself and those who share my religious views, that undoubtedly the Government have taken a very great step towards meeting our wishes in the Amendment which they have put down upon the Paper with regard to the appointment of teachers. I cannot say that it is absolutely satisfactory, because it hardly safeguards the question of the religious teaching upon which we feel so keenly; but I do appreciate the fact that the Government have made a very distinct effort to meet our wishes. I think that my co-religionists would be disappointed and sorry if I did not publicly express that feeling. At the same time I do most sincerely regret that, while they have given that boon to those interested in Clause 4 schools, they have not seen their way to go still further, and remove the barriers in the way of entering under Clause 8. I am bound to say that it was distinctly disappointing to find, on looking through the Amendments of the noble Earl the President of the Council, that that matter had not been dealt with. I admit that on the fraction question the Government has shown that it is prepared to give something, but it is only a small part of what is really required. On the two Amendments of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Crewe the attitude of the House has been equally rigid. The first one was with regard to the number of those voting. This put nearly one-fifth of our schools in instant and serious jeopardy. The Amendment of Lord Lansdowne, which was negatived, the House preferring that of Lord Crewe, would have made it possible at any time when there was no school available of the character required, for any two or three parents, who had among them ten children, entirely to destroy all our facilities with regard to Clause 4 schools. With regard to future schools that is a question of enormous importance.
  1412
  By the Amendments carried in this House it was rendered impossible to have any fore-knowledge in building a school whether the money would be lost or whether the school would be taken over. Those points make us feel that our view as to Clause 4 being an illusory boon have been justified to the end. It is unnecessary for me to dilate upon this point, because the noble Lord has told us to-night that it is intended that these facility schools are to be exceptions. Surely, when he said that, he must have known that his invitation to us to carry such a Bill could not be accepted, and that those who belong to the religious body to which I belong must have felt it an intolerable strain. Since the Act of 1870 we have never handed over one single school to the school boards of the country. That has been our determination in the past, and we are not likely to accept any Bill which clearly fore-dooms many of our schools to extinction. The noble Earl ended his speech with a remark which seemed to come very strangely from him, after all that we have heard. I could not use the word "threatening" to anything which fell from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, but there was a sinister warning in what he said. If he meant that we are to have a hard time of it, I can only say that we have had a hard time during the last sixty years. We base our claim merely upon justice, and we ask for nothing for ourselves that we do not claim for every other parent in the country; and if we are to be treated with some severity because we have adhered to what we believe to be our duty to the religious well-being of the community, we do believe and trust that our countrymen in the future will remedy this, and that ultimately our claims will be satisfied.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I cannot but regret that my noble friend Viscount Goschen should have indulged in a very unnecessary sneer at my noble friend the Lord President.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I am sure that anything like a sneer was entirely absent from my intention, and I cannot

  1413
  imagine that what I said could be taken in that spirit.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: There is certainly some distance between my noble friend and myself, but what he said sounded exceedingly like a sneer. I am convinced that all concerned in the communications in which we have recently been engaged were animated by a sincere desire to come to a satisfactory conclusion. That desire was equally sincere on both sides. The question was a very difficult one and involved a great number of considerations, and perhaps it is not very surprising—though it is very lamentable—that they did not result in something more satisfactory than what has come about. But I cannot for a moment doubt the good faith of those who met together upon that occasion. The most rev. Prelate, at the conclusion of his eloquent speech, indulged in a hope that this question would shortly be solved—apparently, in the space of a few months or, at all events, a few years. I am afraid I cannot share that feeling of the most rev. Prelate—I wish I could. I feel penetrated with a very sincere and deep regret that this Bill is to be destroyed. No Bill is perfect and no Bill that will ever either House of Parliament will not be open to question and criticism. But the question is, as it seems to me. What lies before you if you reject this Bill? I say if you reject this Bill—I do not mean by "if" that I have the smallest doubt that this Bill will be now rejected—but if this Bill is rejected, I think you should ask yourselves, more than you appear to have done, what is to be the result. The noble Duke who was sitting on the Cross Benches (the Duke of Devonshire) is, I think, the only person who in the course of this debate has grappled with that question, and really shown that the most important point of all is, What is the future that will be left to us? That, my Lords, is the subject to which I desire to address the few words that I shall speak to your Lordships to-night. This Bill being rejected, the country is sent back to the condition created by the Act of 1902. I can conceive
  1414
  nothing more unfortunate, for the cause of education in all its branches, than that we should be forced to return, for any period, to conduct the educational administration of the country under the Act of 1902. Your Lordships do not seem to me to realise the position in which His Majesty's Government found themselves when they came into office. I think I touched upon that point in words which I ventured to address to your Lordships at the conclusion of the debate on Second Reading. We found ourselves in a position not of our creating and not brought about by our acts but created by our opponents—a position which had led to the gravest difficulties—difficulties so grave that your Lordships seemed to agree at least that something ought to be done in the matter. You say you have accepted the principle of public control, and you have intimated, in words, a willingness, in some form, or other, to accept the principle of no tests for teachers; therefore you have admitted that the position created by the Act of 1902, and the general election which followed it, has been such as to need large and important alterations in the present state of affairs. But, my Lords, if you reject this Bill, do you think you will be hereafter able to settle the difficulties under which we now suffer more easily than you can do now? Do the noble Lords who support denominational education believe that they will get again the terms that they might have had under this Bill? In saying that, I beg your Lordships to understand that I am making nothing in the nature of a threat—I have had too long an experience in this House not to know that the very worst thing in argument is to indulge in a threat—I have too much respect for your Lordships to do anything of that kind. But I do fool that I should be wanting in the performance of my duty, not only to the Government but to your Lordships' House, if I did not venture to raise a warning voice upon this measure. My noble friend (the Duke of Norfolk) spoke, I was glad to hear, with some acceptance of the change which we offered to make in Clause 4.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I am afraid that my remarks were limited to only one proposed change.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Well, my noble friend is, I know, very difficult to please in this matter. But, my Lords, I must really tell my noble friend that I have the most earnest conviction that nothing more than Clause 4, as it would have been amended under our late arrangements, could be obtained at the present time. And, if you are going to reject this Bill in the hope that you will get something better for denominational schools some years hence, may I be forgiven for saying that that is pure gambling. I do not believe you will get anything more; on the contrary, though I should deeply regret it, I fear you are likely to get, not more, but less. Look at the situation which will be created when this Bill has been thrown out. You send us back to the state of things which exists at the present moment; we shall have all over again, particularly since the decision in the West Riding appeal, the passive resisters; we shall have infinite administrative difficulties; we shall have greater difficulties still with both county and borough councils; we shall have a continuance—aye, and perhaps an aggravation, of that agitation which the Act of 1902 created. Do not
  let your Lordships think that those who are the standing opponents of the Act of 1902, and of all that it created, will be quiet. You will have a renewal of agitation dangerous to the interests of education; you will have a renewal, aye, and an aggravation of the state of things which led to the introduction of this Bill.
  That, my Lords, is the argument which I feel bound to address to your Lordships to-night because, for that state of things, the responsibility must rest upon those who have—I have no doubt in perfect honesty—rejected the measure because it has not satisfied them in certain respects. I have, all my life, been a practical politician, and I have all my life thought it was political wisdom—perhaps I might say that it was statesmanship—to take what you can get in the circumstances of the case. My Lords, it seems to me that you are more likely to get less than more now that this Bill has gone; and it is to me, I honestly admit, a source of the very deepest regret that this measure should fail.
  On Question, "That this House do insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 132; Not-contents, 52.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Devon, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

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

  Cross, V.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Falkland, V.

  Bedford, D.

  Feversham, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Newcastle, D.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Northumberland, D.

  Haddington, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Portland, D.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hill, V.

  Rutland, D.

  Harrowby, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Wellington, D.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Lindsey, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Mayo, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Morley, E.

  Morton, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Albemarle, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Camperdown, E.

  Nelson, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Carnwath, E.

  Plymouth, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Cathcart, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Cawdor, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Clarendon, E.

  Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Darnley, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Dartrey, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Abinger, L.

  Derby, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Addington, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  North, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Emly, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Atkinson, L.

  Faber, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Forester, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Rothschild, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Glenesk, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Barnard, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

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

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Braye, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Burton, L.

  Lovat, L.

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

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntley.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford)

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Mowbray, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Newton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Haversham, L.

  Headley, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

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

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Boston, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Castletown, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Monson, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Davey, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Chichester, E.

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

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Craven, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Temple, E.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Welby, L.

  A Committee appointed to prepare a reason for the Lords insisting on their Amendments. The Committee to meet forthwith.

  LAND TENURE BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): I believe that at this stage of the Bill it is not usual to postpone the title, and therefore I will move to leave out of the title of the Bill the words "Land Tenure" and to insert the words "Agricultural Holdings."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, to leave out the words 'the Tenure of Land,' and insert the words 'Agricultural Holdings."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to amend sub-section 1 of Clause 1 by inserting a proviso that the sum

  1419
  payable to the tenant as compensation for improvements should in no case exceed the fair value of the labour expended or the outlay incurred by him. He said that he made the Motion in order to ascertain the view of the Government as to the effect of the omission of the words in the former Act reserving to the landlord the increased value due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Upon what basis was the value to the tenant to be assessed? He was rather afraid that on the last occasion when he spoke upon this point he misled the House by suggesting a supposititious case, and he apologised for having done so. He would put another case which he thought would make perfectly clear the point to which he desired to have an answer from the Government. Suppose that tenant A had spent £5 in putting on the land a particular manure, and B spent the same amount upon his land. The land of A perhaps would respond more readily than that of B. Suppose the land of A responded to the extent of 4 per cent., and the land of B 2 per cent. Each of these tenants spent the same amount of money upon his holding. Were they to receive compensation in proportion to the amount of their own expenditure—which he thought was fair, and which would be the effect of his Amendment—or were they to receive compensation according to the benefit which the land had received from their action? He submitted that the inherent capabilities of the soil—the power that a particular piece of land had of responding to certain treatment—was not a matter for which the tenant was entitled to compensation. He was afraid that as the Bill now stood, unless some such words as he had suggested were inserted, this matter would be left in doubt, and he could not help thinking that the matter was of such importance that it ought to be very clearly laid down. He begged to move, the insertion of the words of which he had given notice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 18, after the word 'tenant,' to insert the words, 'such sum shall in no case exceed the fair value of the labour expended or the outlay incurred by the outgoing tenant."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I will do the best I can to explain the objects of the Government in regard to this clause. In the case put by the noble Duke of tenants A and B, he says one pays 4 per cent. and the other 2 per cent.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The two tenants spend the same amount, but the return of one is 4 per cent. and the return of the other is only 2 per cent.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The two tenants spend the same amount, and the return in one case is 4 per cent., and in the other 2 per cent. The noble Duke asks whether the compensation should be paid on the expenditure of these two tenants or on the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant. The basis is the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant and the compensation will be such an amount as fairly represents that value. There is in the old Act a provision that what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil shall not be taken into account. The value is to be measured not merely by the labour expended, but also by the skill and experience brought to bear on the work, and the success or otherwise of the improvements. If the proper manures, for instance, are used, and skilfully put on the land, the cost might be the same as if unsuitable artificial manures were improperly applied, and yet, according to the noble Duke, both those tenants will receive the same compensation.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: No, no.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The compensation should be paid not upon the expenditure, but upon the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant. I have done my best to explain the point to the noble Duke, and I hope he is satisfied with my explanation.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I quite appreciate the point which has been raised, but I am afraid that the words proposed by the noble Duke do not carry out what he desires to establish. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill was quite right in saying that the measure

  1421
  of compensation in all the Agricultural Holdings Acts has been the value of the improvement to the incoming tenant, and not what the tenant has expended upon that improvement. That seems to me to be the only fair basis on which it can be calculated. A man might spend a great deal of money upon things which would be absolutely useless to the incoming tenant, and why should he receive that money back again as compensation? On the other hand, if the compensation to the out-going tenant is limited by the words suggested by the noble Duke, the result will be that if the improvement is worth a great deal more to the incoming tenant than the outgoing tenant has expended upon it the latter will not be fairly compensated for his expenditure and labour. If a tenant makes a mistake in regard to the improvements he makes, or if they were badly designed and badly executed he will suffer accordingly. On the other hand, if the improvements are well done the tenant will gain, and surely that is fair. The noble Duke desires to establish the principle that the tenant shall not receive anything due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. I happen to be, in some sense, the author of those words, because I remember when the original Act was being discussed in the House of Commons many years ago the President of the Board of Agriculture of that day used these words as showing in his opinion what the tenant could not be allowed to claim for, and I asked him to insert them in the Bill, which he did. So far as I have been able to ascertain in my part of England, valuers have never been able to understand these words, so that they have been practically without any effect, and I do not think any interest will be damnified by their omission.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Under the circumstances I will not press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I desire to move the omission of the words "any custom or." My technical advisers are
  1422
  of opinion that this Amendment is both desirable and necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words 'any custom or,' and to insert the word, 'the"—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I now propose to leave out the words "to be determined by" in order to insert the words "referred to." This is simply a drafting Amendment drawn to meet a suggestion made by Lord Camperdown.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words 'to be determined by,' and insert the words 'referred to."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'section,' and to insert the word 'subsection."
  "In page 2, lines 10 to 13, to leave out sub-section (3) and to insert the words '(3) The following rule shall be substituted for rule (10) in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900:—The arbitrator shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular improvement or any particular matter the subject of the award, and the award shall fix a day not sooner than one month or later than two months after the delivery of the award for the payment of the money awarded as compensation, costs, or otherwise, and shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KINTOREmoved an Amendment to enable a landlord who is obliged by ill-health to live away from his property to give his tenant permission in writing to kill game coming from preserves abutting on his farm, in lieu of paying compensation for damage done by the game. His Amendment was intended to provide against possible hardship which he was confident that the Minister for Agriculture did not desire to inflict. The clause provided that—
  "Where the tenant has sustained damage to his crops from game the right to kill and take

  1423
  which is vested neither in him nor in anyone claiming under him other than the landlord, he shall be entitled to compensation from his landlord for such damage."
  To illustrate what he meant he would take the care of a tenant who farmed some fields liable to damage from game crossing from a neighbouring owner's land. The landlord, being compelled to live away from home on account of ill-health, might empower his tenant to protect his crops by killing and taking the game causing the damage. If his information was correct, as the clause now stood, that landlord might nevertheless be held liable for damages. He did not think that his noble friend intended this, and he hoped he would accept this Amendment. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 16, after the word 'landlord' to insert the words 'and which the tenant has not permission in writing to kill.'" (The Earl of Kintore.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I shall be very pleased to accept this Amendment.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If the noble Earl will look at the Bill he will find that the words are "kill or take."
  EARL CARRINGTON: If that is so they have slipped in by mistake, and I must ask the House to allow it to read "kill and take."
  *LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid the words "or take" were put in deliberately. He believed the words were to be found in the Ground Game Act, and surely this measure ought to be on all fours with that Act. It was quite a different thing "to kill and take" from "to kill or take." A man might take without killing and in that way get off.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I must ask the House to allow me to retain the words "kill and take." The draughtsman says the words ought to be "kill and take."
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I have now to move a series of Amendments intended
  1424
  to make the procedure perfectly clear. Their object is to secure prompt notice to the landlord of damage done, thus removing any difficulty as to the tenant's position in the case of damage, and generally to clear up any ambiguity in the clause. As amended, the clause will read—
  "(2) The amount of compensation payable under this section shall, in default of agreement made after the damage has been suffered, be determined by arbitration, but no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing of the damage is given to the landlord as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the tenant and a reasonable opportunity is given to the landlord to inspect the damages, (a) In the ease of damage to a growing crop before the crop is begun to be reaped, raised, or consumed; (b) In the case of damage to a crop reaped or raised, before it is begun to be removed from the land—and unless notice in writing of the claim together with the particulars thereof, is given to the landlord within one month after the expiration of the calendar year, or such other period of twelve months as by agreement between the landlord and tenant may be substituted therefore in respect of which the claim is made. (3) Where the landlord proves that, under a contract of tenancy any compensation for damage by game is payable by him, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such contract allowance in respect of such damage to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable under this section as may appear just. Provided that in the case of a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, such a deduction as aforesaid shall be made, whether the allowance was to an agreed amount or not, and whether the allowance was expressly made or not, and for the purposes of this proviso a tenancy from year to year current at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to continue until the first day on which either the landlord or the tenant could, the one by giving notice to the other immediately after the commencement of this Act cause the tenancy to determine. (4) Where the right to kill or take the game is vested in some person other than the landlord the landlord shall be entitled to be indemnified by such other person against all claims for compensation under this section."
  By these Amendments we secure prompt notice of damage and remove any difficulty as to the tenant's position in the case of damage done within three weeks and the one week specified in paragraphs (a) and (b). Any ambiguity as to the meaning of the word "year" is also cleared up. I sincerely hope that the House will regard these Amendments as making for clearness and simplicity. If the House will permit me I will make these Amendments en bloc.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 2, line 26, to leave out the words 'claim for compensation' and insect the word 'damage."
  "In page 2, line 28, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'a reasonable opportunity is given to the landlord to inspect the damage."
  "In page 2, lines 29 and 30, to leave out the words 'at least three weeks."
  "In page 2, line 30, to leave out from the word 'is' to the word 'and' in line 33, and insert the words 'begun to be reaped, raised, or consumed."
  In part 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'at least one week."
  "In page 2, line 35, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'begun to be."
  "In page 2, line 36, to leave out the words 'written particulars of the claim are' and insert the words 'notice in writing of the claim, together with the particulars thereof, is."
  "In page 2, line 37, to leave out the word 'year' and insert the words 'calendar year, or such other period of twelve months as by agreement between the landlord and tenant may be substituted therefor."
  "In page 2, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words 'whether made before or after the commencement of this Act."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page, 3 line 14, to leave out the word 'or' and insert the word 'and.'—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'produced upon the holding."
  "In line 25, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'on his holding."—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked how could a tenant cultivate any land which was not on his holding?
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid the provision related to arable land on his holding. An Amendment was inserted the other day which, by accident, was not recorded, but which had the same effect as this one. He had inserted the words "arable land on his holding" so as to make it clear that it did not include pasture land. The insertion of these words now made the matter quite clear.
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I desire to move an Amendment to Clause 3 (freedom of cropping and disposal of produce), omitting the qualifying words "generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character." I venture to submit this Amendment instead of the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The noble Lord proposes to leave out the same words, but he wishes to insert in lieu thereof the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry." The words of the noble Lord are better than those originally inserted in Committee, but they are open to the same objection in principle. The object of the clause is to give the tenant, not merely freedom to crop as other people are cropping, but freedom to crop subject only to the condition that there shall be no injury to the holding. Subject to this condition we desire to encourage initiative and enterprise on the part of the tenant. Good husbandry is not a fixed and stereotyped thing, and what may be regarded as inconsistent with the principle of good husbandry at one time and in one particular part of the country may come to be regarded as quite consistent with those principles at a later date. With great respect, therefore, I ask the House to consider this matter from our point of view and accept this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character."—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the House would recollect that the words which he proposed to leave out were inserted during the Committee stage of the Bill. The words he now proposed were then on the Paper, but he withdrew his Amendment, and the House substituted an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Penrhyn. If their Lordships would look at the early words of the clause they would see that it read "notwithstanding any custom of the country." Then the clause went on to provide that the tenant should have the full right to practise any system "generally recognised in the district." That was really the custom of the country. Those words were wholly inconsistent

  1427
  the one with the other, and to that extent he submitted that the words of the clause were not suitable. The noble Earl agreed with him as to the words which ought to be deleted, but after that point their harmony ceased, because he considered it important that words should be inserted limiting the freedom of the tenant, not, indeed, in that which was good, but in that which was bad. Without some such safeguard as he proposed landlords in his own part of the country would run the risk of serious deterioration of their property. He could not tell the House how strongly he felt on this point. They ought to provide this very small and reasonable limitation to the immense amount of freedom which the noble Earl proposed to give to the tenant. They would part for a year with the whole control of their laid. The bargains between landlord and tenant were being interfered with, and he did not think it was asking too much to lay down that cropping should be done consistently with the principles of good husbandry. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character' and insert the words 'consistent with the principles of good husbandry."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHhoped the noble Earl would consent to the insertion of the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry." It was the original Amendment suggested on the Committee stage, and he thought the Government would find it very difficult to offer any sound objection to it. The proposal made it clear to the tenant that he had to cultivate his land consistently with the principles of good husbandry, and he hoped the House would decide to insert those words.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The noble Earl opposite says the words in the Bill are objectionable because they appear to limit freedom of cropping and discourage enterprise on the part of the tenant which may lead him to try experiments which might be of real ultimate benefit to agriculture as well as to his own holding. I very much sympathise with that view, and I am very glad that Lord Balfour has moved to
  1428
  substitute these words. I do not think the two sides of the House are very far apart on this point. The noble Earl in resisting this Amendment said "a tenant ought not to do anything which would have an injurious effect on the permanent interest of the holding." I think those were his words. Really, if those words were put into the clause they would have precisely the same effect as the words proposed by my noble friend.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he did not see how the Government could object to these words. He did not think their fathers were such fools as some people took them to be in this matter, and if their Lordships inquired why in the past there had been ridges and furrows and so on they would find very good reasons for that system of cultivation. One well known authority held that they could cultivate eight, ten, or twenty white crops one after the other without doing the land any harm. Without going any further into that question, even that might be considered to be consistent with the rules of good husbandry. He hoped the noble Earl would see his way to insert those words.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIf my noble friend presses his Amendment I think he might leave out the reference to principles.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely the words "consistent with good husbandry" would be sufficient. I cannot see what the noble Lord means by a reference to the principles of good husbandry, because I am not aware of any place where a definition of those principles is to be found.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the reason why he put in those words was that they formed an expression which was well understood in Scotland. If it was not likely to carry weight in England he was in the hands of the House, but it was clearly understood by everybody in Scotland.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am in favour of giving the largest possible freedom to the tenant in this matter. I

  1429
  believe that if you want to have the best cultivation of your land you had better treat the tenant as you would treat any other person investing his capital in any other industry, and give him as much freedom in the management of his own business as you possibly can. It seems to me that that is a very legitimate and a very wise proposition, and I should very much regret the introduction of any words which would tend to restrict the tenant in this matter. Of course it is necessary to take precautions to protect the landlord from any injury or loss. I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed the words which provide that the tenant "shall make suitable and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or deterioration."
  Those were the words suggested by the noble Viscount opposite, and as they appear in an earlier part of the clause, I should have thought they would have had the effect desired by the noble Viscount without unnecessarily interfering with freedom of cropping.
  On Question, "That the words 'generally recognised in the district as good husbandry in respect of land of a like character,' stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
  On Question, "That the words 'consistent with the principles of good husbandry' be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 22.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

  Dunboyne, L.

  Portland, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Forester, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Hastings, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Yarborough, E.

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

  Lansdowne, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Albemarle, E.

  Hill, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

  Lovat, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Macnaghten, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Middleton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Mowbray, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Addington, L.

  North, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Devon, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

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

  Balfour, L. [Teller.]

  Saltoun, L.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Sanderson, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Harewood, E.

  Belper, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Borthwiuk, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Braye, L.

  Stalbridge, L

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

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

  Mayo, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Templemore, E.

  Morley, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Morton, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Zouche of Haryngyworth, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Boston, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Ripon, M. [L. Privy Seal.)

  Denman, L. (Teller.]

  Overtoun, L.

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

  Sandhurst, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Chesterfield, E. (Teller.]

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Weardale, L.

  LORD CLINTONsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words "suitable manures having." He thought that some such words as these were necessary to make good the loss which the soil must sustain by the selling off of produce which it had always been the custom and good practice to consume upon the farm. Since he had placed this Amendment on the Paper he had received a communication from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, informing him that he appreciated the reason and point of his Amendment, and stating that he had himself placed some words on the Paper which would meet the case. He had consulted his friends on the point, and they agreed that the words suggested would suit their purpose equally well, and under those circumstances he would not move his Amendment.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 3, line 32, after the word 'full' to insert the word 'equivalent."
  "In page 3, line 33, after the word 'value' to insert the words 'to the holding."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  LORD SALTOUNsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the word "holding" the words, "to the same effect and with the like enduring benefit to the land as if such produce had been consumed on the holding." He wished to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill in communicating with him in reference to his Amendment, and as the point had been met he would not move.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment providing not only for the return to the holding of the full equivalent manurial value of the crops removed from the holding in contravention of the custom, contract, or agreement, but that "in either of such cases the tenant shall, if required, notify in writing to the landlord the provision so made or to be made." His Amendment stated clearly what the adequate provision was that had to be made to prevent the deterioration of the holding from cross cropping, and it also made clear what was to be returned to the holding from the crops which were sold off. He thought it was very desirable that the landlord
  1432
  should be informed in some way what provision was going to be made for these purposes.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 34, after the word 'agreement' to insert the words 'and in either of such cases the tenant shall, if required, notify in writing to the landlord the provision so made or to be made."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I must resist this Amendment because it places on the tenant, especially in the case of the smaller men, an obligation which it is quite impossible for them to discharge. If the Amendment is passed it will lead to a good deal of friction and misunderstanding. I think that the tenant ought to be trusted to cultivate his holding subject to the safeguards provided in the Bill, which in my opinion, are quite adequate.
  LORD SALTOUNasked what "adequate provision" meant. It seemed to him that the whole of the noble Earl's intentions in this Bill were to protect the farmer and give him every facility against the landlord. He did not seem to consider the position of the landlord at all. There were such things as bad tenants, and there were difficulties in the way of getting rid of them. What was sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, and he should like the noble Earl to point out in this Bill anything which would show what adequate provision meant.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD CLINTONmoved an Amendment providing that the provisions of the clause should not apply—
  "(a) In the case of a lease for nineteen years or longer duration as respects the last three years before the expiration thereof; or (b) in any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding."
  Their Lordships would remember that when the Bill was in Committee, an Amendment was moved to provide that sub-section (1) should not apply to the last four years of any tenancy, and it was generally agreed that that provision went further than its mover intended. Leases of four years and under would have entirely escaped the provisions of

  1433
  that sub-section, and leases of five, six, or seven years would have been very little affected. The Amendment was originally proposed in the interests of long lease such as they had in Scotland. He hoped the noble Earl would consider the words he had proposed were suitable to meet the case. It was obvious that this clause gave very large powers to the tenant. If those powers were misused for a year only the landlord could get rid of his tenant without much harm being done, but if a tenant had a nineteen years lease he might work very considerable damage before his lease could be brought to a termination. The Amendment was not only in the interests of the landowner but also in the interests of the incoming tenants. Their Lordships knew perfectly well the exceedingly difficult position the incoming tenant was in if he took a farm in a bad state of cultivation. He believed that three years, although not a very long time, might be sufficient for the tenant to put his farm in something like order. He hoped the noble Earl would see fit to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 35, to leave out from the word 'apply' to the word 'tenancy' and insert; '(a) In the case of a lease for nineteen years of longer duration as respects the last three years before the expiration thereof; or (b) in any other case as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit, which results in his quitting the holding."—(Lord Clinton.)
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he very much regretted that it was absolutely impossible for him to accept the Amendment as it touched one of the vital parts of the Bill. It would deprive the tenant of his freedom of cropping during the last three years of his lease, and in view of the safeguards provided against the injury or deterioration of the holding he did not think that the Amendment was in any way necessary. He would ask the Committee just to look at the clause as it stood—
  "Notwithstanding any custom of the country or the provisions of any contract of tenancy or agreement,"
  and so on—
  "The landlord is entitled to recover damages in respect of any injury or to obtain an injunction restraining the exercise of his rights,"
  1434
  and so on. This applied, as their Lordships would see from the words he had read, to all tenancies under the Act. And what did this Amendment propose to do? It proposed, for the last three years of a nineteen years' lease to prevent the tenant cropping as he liked. They were told that in a great many cases these nineteen years leases were determinable, or broken, as he believed the expression was, at the end of seven or fourteen years. What would be the result of this? A lease of nineteen years would be broken at the end of seven years, and after the first four years the tenant would not know whether he might crop as he liked in order to make the best of his holding, or whether he would be obliged to crop according to the, he was almost going to say, penal conditions of old days. The thing could not possibly work. He must make a firm stand upon this. If the Amendment was pressed, as he supposed it would be, he must take the sense of the House on the subject.
  LORD SALTOUNpointed out that the noble Earl was entirely wrong; this Amendment did not apply to any break. It did not apply to the last three years with a break of seven, or ten, or any other number of years; it merely applied to the nineteen years, or the twenty-one years as in England. It was not meant only for Scotland; it was meant for England also. And he would point out to the noble Earl that those in Scotland who had leases were at the present moment, under the present Bill, in a much worse condition than their English friends who had yearly leases. There was not the slightest doubt that if an English landlord had a quarrel with one of his tenants, and wished to get rid of him, he could do so by paying him one year's rent. But with these Scottish leases they were in a very different position. A man might destroy his farm, but they could not turn him out; he was there for nineteen years, and during the last years of his lease he could leave that farm in a very bad state, unless there was some restriction during the last few years requiring him to put the farm into some sort of rotation. Let them consider for one moment.

  1435
  If the farm was let down and left, the tenant might say, "It is not worth my while keeping this farm unless you give it to me for a very much reduced rent," If the landlord replied "No," whether paid compensation or not, the tenant would go, and the landlord must either take that farm into his own hand, and go through a complete course of cropping, and put it in proper order before he could let it again, or else let it at a very much reduced rent. On the other hand, if he let it at a very much reduced rent, the tenant might keep it for a certain number of years. They must remember that one of the conditions of this Bill was that nineteen years leases would cease, twenty-one years leases would cease, and the tenure would be from year to year after the present leases had expired. A tenant would offer a very much reduced rent because the farm was left in bad repair. He would keep it for a few years, and then leave it, and he would go to the landlord and say "I have put this farm into excellent order; you must compensate me for what I have done." The landlord was in a hopeless position; he would have to pay. That meant compensation for what the other man had lost for them. There was absolutely no equality about it; the landlord was done either way. He earnestly hoped that Lord Clinton would press the Amendment to a division. If carried, it would result in benefit not only to Scottish landowners, but to landowners all over the kingdom.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought the experience of Earl Carrington was chiefly English. He wondered whether it had occurred to him to go to the Scottish Office and ask how this clause would work in Scotland. He was bound to say that judging from their experience of the amount of help which the Scottish Office had given in regard to this Bill, which, as they knew, was to be applied to Scotland, he did not think it would have done him much good even had he gone there. He greatly doubted whether at the Scottish Office they really knew anything about Scottish agriculture at the present time. At all events with regard to this
  1436
  Bill, which was a Bill drawn for England and extended to Scotland, the Scottish Office had not done one single thing to make it applicable to Scotland and to introduce the necessary Amendments for that purpose. He would point out to the noble Earl what he was doing. He was saying that this clause was not to apply for one year to a tenancy of any sort or kind, whether it was a yearly tenancy, whether it was a lease for nineteen years, or of any other duration. What was that except to put the man who let his land for nineteen years in an inferior position to the man who let his land for one year? What would be the result of that in Scotland? It would be to do away with nineteen year leases. Any man in future who let his land for nineteen years, whatever arrangements he might make with his tenant with regard to cropping or any thing else, would know that such arrangements were useless. If he let his land for nineteen years he was hung up for nineteen years, whereas if he only let it for one year, as his noble, friend Lord Clinton had pointed out, he could get rid of his tenant if he had cropped his land badly, at the end of one year. He had no doubt that the noble Earl thought he was doing a great deal for the interest of the tenant. He was certain that he had not a tenant himself who would wish to see this Bill passed, and he did not believe the tenants generally in Scotland wanted it for one moment. They had told the noble Earl, with regard to the clause for compensation, that they thought it was perfectly inapplicable to Scotland. The Bill was to be applied to Scotland, but it was not applicable to that country, and the result was that they would do away with nineteen year leases in Scotland. No doubt there were people in the House of Commons—and there might be some of their Lordships—who thought that that meant nothing. If they went to Scotland, and knew anything about Scotland, he was sure they would know that the Scottish tenants did not think so, and if no difference were made between yearly leases and yearly tenancies in Scotland all he could say was that he believed most sincerely it would produce a most prejudicial effect upon

  1437
  Scottish agriculture, and when he said Scottish agriculture he meant from the point of view of the tenant.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGsaid that the difficulty they, as Scottish landowners, were in arose from the fact that the Bill was drafted for England and not for Scotland. It was drafted hurriedly, no doubt, and by people who knew nothing about the conditions prevailing in Scotland with regard to land tenure. He would like very much to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when the Government determined to take up this Bill, they realised that it would apply also to Scotland, and that it would have such prejudicial effect upon the Scottish system of nineteen-years leases.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that they on the Opposition side had often expressed their appreciation of the way in which the noble Earl (Earl Carrington) had met their proposals with regard to this Bill. He was sorry, therefore, that he had not shown any reciprocal appreciation of their endeavours to meet his views. He was sure that the clause a proposed by his noble friend Lord Clinton was a great improvement on the words in the Bill. The terms of the clause, as amended in Committee, were very much wider not only because four years were substituted for three, but also because they would apply to all leases, and, as his noble friend had said, would practically enable any person who gave a lease of four years to contract himself out of the application of the clause. His noble friend (Lord Clinton), desiring to be fair to the tenants, and to facilitate the working of the clause, had made this proposal to their Lordships. He did not think that, as a rule. English landlords gave anything like nineteen years leases, and therefore it was a proposal rather for Scotland than for England. As an English landlord, if it would meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government he was quite willing to see this proposal applied solely to Scotland. It was the Scottish agricultural system that required it, and he believed the desire for it was by no means confined to landlords, but would be found among tenants as well. He hoped that Earl Carrington would con-
  1438
  sider the matter from the Scottish point of view, at any rate, before the Bill became law.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that of course he did not pretend to be a Scotchman, but he did pay a certain amount of deference and respect to the feelings of Scotsmen, and he would like to draw the attention of the House to the summer conference of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and associated societies held in June, 1906. He had the honour of seeing the Scottish farmers in Edinburgh, and, as the Earl of Camperdown had said, he thought it was a good rule that, generally speaking, people should be allowed to manage their own affairs in their own place. He would therefore refer to the discussion of these Caledonians on the 15th June. Clause 4 of the Bill was discussed by them, and none of those present—most of whom had leases—put any amendment at all to the resolution of the chairman, who, he supposed, was also a Scotsman. The chairman at that meeting said to his brother Scotsmen—
  "Well, there is no amendment to this resolution, so that I may take it that Clause 4 is unanimously approved of."
  Those hard-headed men unanimously approved of Clause 4 as it stood in the old Bill, and under those circumstances he thought he was perfectly justified in sticking to his guns, and he would certainly take the sense of the House—either on this point or on his own Amendment which brought it back again to the original form that these Scottish people approved of—that it should be limited to one year only.
  On Question, after a division had been challenged, but not persisted in, Amendments agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to leave out sub-section (5), which had been inserted on the motion of the Earl of Wemyss. He thought that on reconsideration the House would agree that this sub-section was impracticable and of no real utility to the landlord. Very few farmers could

  1439
  comply with it, and it affected a most numerous class who would be unable to do what was required. There was no reason why the landlord and tenant should not agree to adopt the proposal for arrangement contained in the Bill. These were matters which, he would respectfully submit to the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), should be the subject of agreement instead of statutory obligation. He thought that that was a distinction which the noble Earl would be the first to see and to appreciate, and therefore he hoped he might be permitted to leave out Sub-section (5).
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, lines 20 to 29, to leave out sub-section (5)."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I ask the noble Earl why, if he objects to this sub-section now, he accepted it on a previous occasion?
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he would leave the matter in the hands of the House. Their Lordships had approved of it when he ventured to move it. It was not his own idea, but was suggested to him by responsible persons and it was accepted. He had pointed out on a former occasion that it would be a very good thing, and that it would have a beneficial educational effect; it would teach the farmers to keep their books and their accounts properly. He would now be content with repeating that, and would leave the matter in their Lordships' hands.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to leave out the fourth clause. He objected very strongly to the Government's interfering with the management of private property. He had held that view through a long Parliamentary life; he had stood by it on the Irish Land Bill of 1870, and again in 1881; also on the Agricultural Holdings Bill in another House and in other ways. He did not see, provided that the landlord and tenant did nothing immoral in the management of their estate, that the Government should have anything to do with it. Of course there were
  1440
  few landlords and a great many tenants, and one could understand that there might be a Parliamentary reason for the part of the tenant being taken up by the Government. Passing that by, however, this Bill was not originally the Bill of the Government; it was one of those many Bills that, ever since the necessity of getting a First Reading in the other House was done away with by Mr. Disraeli, had flooded the House of Commons, and led to confusion. He wanted to know on what principle the Government up these Bills. It was very interesting for one to know the secrets of the Cabinet so far. He had his own idea on the subject, and that was that there was a small Committee of the Cabinet which looked through these Bills; that they took up any likely Bill, and asked themselves, "Does this interfere with contracts? If so, we will star it, and take it up. Does this Bill transfer property rights from the real owner to the tenant or to some other person? If it does, then we will star it." Lastly, and this was a very large order and covered the whole field, they inquired, "Is this a Bill conceived upon the old Liberal principles of the greatest happiness of the greatest number—of voters?" If the Bill satisfied any or all of those conditions, it was starred. He would not say that the present measure was a star of the first magnitude; but that it would become so, if they did not take care, he was perfectly certain. The Front Opposition Bench appeared to be satisfied with certain changes that had been made in the Bill. Any changes that he had seen made did not touch the evil of the Bill—the crux of the Bill—which was in the beginning of the fourth clause. Let them read the advertisements of the different clauses which appeared at the back of the Bill. In the case of the present Bill they would see that it embraced the principle of compensation for disturbance. Anybody who had paid attention to the Irish Land Bill knew pretty well what that meant, and what it might grow to. It meant tenant right; in the long run it meant dual ownership. That was an evil principle, and he would point out for their Lordships' consideration that it began thirty-six years ago in the Irish Land Act, which gave compensation

  1441
  for disturbance. That Act was an exceptional measure. He had before him the words of Mr. Gladstone when he brought in that Bill, and he might say of Mr. Gladstone's legislation that he looked upon him—as they would say in Scotland—as the "old Adam" of all evil modern legislation, for it all dated from the Irish Land Act. What did Mr. Gladstone say? Did he see in the future any probability of this legislation coming to England and Scotland? Far from it. He said, when he introduced his Irish Land Bill of 1870—
  "The Bill is a measure wholly and absolutely exceptional. We look upon it as an exceptional Irish measure. Nay, more, we hope the time may come when, instead of being extended to England and Scotland, the provisions of this Bill may no longer be necessary in Ireland."
  That was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone when he brought the Irish Land Bill forward in 1870. Now let them trace the history of that Bill. What had it ended in? They had had the Land Bill of 1881, and it had ended in the expropriation of the Irish landlords. He had met, in the autumn, an Irish landlord who was a great devolutionist, who said to him with a twinkle in his eye, "I have got rid of all my property. He (the Earl of Wemyss) said, "Have you? What have you done about your place and the surrounding grounds?" "Oh! that is mine for ever," was the answer; to which he had responded, "Yes! till they want it." That was the state of things in Ireland. Now he had told them how all this came from the nest-egg of the Irish Land Act of 1870. Did they wish to import into England and Scotland this same thing, If so, let them vote for this clause and vote against his Motion. He hoped their Lordships, warned by the history of Ireland, would take time by the forelock and prevent evil which would otherwise be felt for generations to come; and in that hope, and in the hope that he would have some support (and he would divide if he even had a teller), he would move the rejection of this Clause No. 4.
  Principiis obsta; and he asked their Lordships also to remember that splendid French saying, "Fais ce que doit advienne que pourra," and to act upon it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 30, to leave out from beginning of clause to 'by' in line 32."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he really had heard with great regret the determination of the noble Earl to move to omit this clause. They had listened to his speech with the greatest pleasure, as they always did, but he was bound to say that the subject of the speech was really to his mind a grievous one. He talked about the evils of the Bill. What were the evils of the Bill? The main evil of the Bill was, the noble Earl had said, compensation for disturbance, and he had gone on to say that that meant tenant right and dual ownership. There was no tenant right within the four corners of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg your pardon. Compensation for disturbance is tenant right.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I deny it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Absolutely.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that compensation for disturbance did not mean tenant right, and there was no such thing in the whole of the Bill. They could not twist anything in the Bill into dual ownership. What was the idea of the noble Earl's speech? It was the old idea of hundreds of years ago: "All that is on the earth is mine, and all that is under the earth is mine, and if you do no leave all my property as I wish, and as I tell you, I give you notice to quit. Never mind how long you have been on the property—out you go, and you are not to have any compensation." He would honestly admit that if he lived under the noble Earl, or if he lived under any Member of their Lordship's House, he would have no fear, and he would not have any wish that a Bill of this sort should be brought before their Lordships. But unfortunately things were not in that happy condition that their Lordships would nave them believe. He did not wish to make a Second Reading speech but he thought it was only courteous

  1443
  to the noble Earl to put clearly before the House the view of the Government, not only on the omission of this clause, but on the various other proposals which they would have in a moment or two to discuss upon Clause 4. Perhaps it would save time if he said a word or two on the whole question. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons by large majorities, and they gave great concessions. The Government had gone as far as they could go, as he had said before. In his endeavours to meet the wishes of the Opposition he had strained the loyalty of the Liberal and Radical Party almost to breaking point. A hundred and fifty of them went into the Division Lobby against him, and he could not find it in his heart to blame them, for, had he been a county Member of the House of Commons, he thought he would have done the same thing. That Bill came up to their Lordships' House, and passed a Second Reading without a division; and he had submitted, and would do so again, that the agricultural opinion all over great Britain was favourable to the Bill.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he was perfectly certain in his own mind that the great majority of those who had agricultural interests, and of the tenant farmers, was in favour of the Bill. He had quoted on a former occasion the words of Lord Helmsley, and he was told, and perhaps properly told, that the opinion of a young Member of another House ought to have no effect upon their Lordships' House. But he might be permitted to bring forward the opinion of a well known Member of their Lordships' House, a kinsman of his own, who had very large property in Lincolnshire, and also in Scotland, who was not a Liberal, and who, he believed, disliked and opposed the Bill as much as any Member of their Lordships' House could possibly do. But what did he say? Lord An caster was speaking a few days ago at Grantham, at a meeting of the Conservatives of the Stamford division. Their Lordships knew that Lord An caster was one of the longest-headed of men, and a man whose opinion was
  1444
  worth having. He had a very large property in Scotland as well as in England, and there was not one word in his speech in support of taking the Scottish leases out of the Bill. What did he say? He disliked the Bill, and he gave his reasons why he was opposed to it. But he also said—
  "However, they had got to accept it and to make the best of it. That was what it had come to. He only trusted that the hopes of those who brought in the Bill would come to pass, and that it might do good and have a favourable impression on agriculture. If their anticipations came to pass it would be good for the tenants and good for the labourers—"
  and so on. Lord An caster accepted the Bill, and he was prepared to accept it as it stood. What was the proposal now before them? It was practically to penalise the leaseholders who, as a rule, were the best tenants that their Lordships or any other landlords had, and gave the landlord the greatest security. They were the men who stuck to the estate—the men who had confidence in their landlord and were ready to stand by him. And the advantages of this Bill were given to whom? To the man who had a yearly tenancy, and who could go, sometimes in six months, sometimes in twelve months, and clear out altogether. What was the Scottish attitude with regard to this Bill? The whole of the Members of Parliament for Scotland were unanimous in its favour, and after all one must remember that there was such a place as the House of Commons, and that persons in the House of Commons were elected by the suffrages of their fellow citizens, and that, if they did not represent the feelings of their fellow-citizens at the next election they would lose their seats. All these Scottish Members of Parliament were unanimously in favour of the Bill, and that, to his mind, was conclusive evidence that Scotland, as a country, was favourable to it. And besides that, there was the increasing disposition of the Scottish Chamber to accept the clause they had now before them. He asked their Lordships, was it wise to make a leasehold tenancy less attractive in the tenants' eyes by withholding from the leaseholders rights and privileges which they had very generously given to other tenants? He implored them to do a

  1445
  generous thing, and to do it in a generous manner. Let them treat all their tenants alike, or what would the country say? The country would say that a hardship and an injustice had been done to the best representatives of a hard-working, honourable, and industrious class of men. He thought it would save the time of the House to express what the feelings of the Government were on this point—that they could not give way as regarded the leaseholders; that they could not exempt them from the benefits of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid that, in rising to support the Amendment, he might tell the House that he was one of those who, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, thought that this Bill contained a certain amount of dual ownership. In the sixth clause it was provided that if a tenant claimed for certain improvements, and gave notice to the landlord, and the landlord was not prepared to carry them out, the tenant should be able to do so and then come down upon the landlord to pay the expenses. That was really giving the tenant leave to deal with another man's property, and of course that amounted to dual ownership. He had always been in favour of making every concession to the tenant farmers of the country. He thought he knew something of them. They were an industrious, a loyal and a patriotic class, and he had always thought that Parliament should do all it could to meet their views. There were some parts of this Bill with which he must say he agreed. He thought it was quite fair that they should give compensation for unexhausted improvements. It was quite fair that they should give compensation for any damage or injury done by game or in any other way. It was quite fair that they should give a certain freedom of cropping, and not be too restrictive in their agreements in that respect. But when they came to this fourth clause, he quite agreed with the Earl of Wemyss that it was a new departure, which introduced a principle first originated in Ireland in the Land Act of 1870. It tended to a certain fixity of tenure. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, who was once
  1446
  a member of a Conservative Ministry, seemed to doubt, in what he said the other night, that this clause included fixity of tenure. It did not say so in so many words, but if they hedged it round with every kind of obstruction, if they made it impose a great expense upon the landlord—an unknown, indefinite expense—they would make him afraid; of making any change, though it might be most desirable in the interest of the estate. His opinion was that that almost amounted to fixity of tenure. It was in that direction at all events. It was not fair or just that a landlord should be exposed to unknown and indefinite expenditure, as he might be under this clause, and therefore he agreed with his noble friend and cordially supported the Amendment. They should, in his opinion, reject this clause, which he considered was out side the general principle of the Bill, and which would be dangerous in its effect. It would tend to introduce friction between landlord and tenant. The relations between landlord and tenant were now most satisfactory. They had settled down into a state of harmony and goodwill, and to pass any clause which disturbed that harmony and good feeling was, in his opinion, contrary to the interests of the country and inimical to the interests of agriculture.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)said that the Amendment, if carried, would be a death blow to the Bill, and he thought that fact must be appreciated by every noble Lord who had spoken. He could only say that this clause was regarded by the Government as a vital part of the Bill and, if it were thrown out now, it would prove to have been rather a cruel kindness to have given the Bill a Second Reading. He trusted their Lordships would not, at this stage, destroy an essential part of the Bill.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he would only trouble the House with one or two observations, because he had already on more than one occasion expressed his view. He agreed with what the noble and learned Lord had just said to their Lordships, that if they had desired to expunge this clause from the Bill they

  1447
  ought to have rejected the Bill on the Second Reading. It was undoubtedly one of the most important provisions in the Bill, and having passed this Bill through Committee, and having made considerable Amendments in the clause, which certainly made it more favourable or, at least, less unfair, to the landlord than in its previous shape, he did not see how they could, consistently with what they had already done, reject the clause on Report. He had always asked himself, in considering the clause, not so much whether it would have any very great effect, as what harm it would do? It was very carefully guarded in its present form. The words at the commencement of the clause he thought really freed it from the objection of the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, that it gave fixity of tenure, or could be described as fining a landlord heavily for doing something which would be consistent with the proper management of his estate. But as the noble Earl (Lord Carrington) had accepted Amendments excluding the operation of the clause, in in certain cases, limiting the amount of compensation, allowing the landlord to obtain a valuation of the stock, implements, and produce which the tenant would have to sell or remove on quitting the holding before sale or removal took place, and constituting a tribunal at the option of either party in the county court for the better and more just carrying out of the clause, he hoped their Lordships would not accept the Motion of his noble friend Lord Wemyss, but would agree to the clause as it now stood.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDtrusted that on such an important question, really touching the whole nature of the Bill, their Lordships would excuse a few words from him even at that late hour. He was sorry he could not agree with the noble Lord, Viscount St. Aldwyn. The noble Viscount asked what harm this clause would do. It would do this harm—it would establish a precedent. Leaving out other parts of the clause which might be commented upon, it for the first time enacted that when an agreement had been made with a man for a certain number of
  1448
  years, and that number of years was terminated, the landlord at the end of the agreement was not to be at liberty to do as he liked, but, under certain penalties, the tenure must be renewed for a certain term. That was an entirely new principle in English land law, and, with all due respect to the noble Viscount, he must say it was idle to ask what it did. It established a precedent, and he did not see how they could get out of it. The harm of establishing a precedent was this, and they had seen it in past legislation over and over again. The first establishment of a precedent was never important—it was always very small, and it was always recommended because it was so small. Then when a very much greater invasion of good principle was introduced at a later stage in the history of the country, and they objected to it, they were told, "Oh, it is no use your objecting now; you gave up that principle long ago." Therefore he thought it was in the highest degree important that they should protest in the strongest manner against this introduction of a totally new principle in the land legislation of this country. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture had said that he listened to Lord Wemyss's speech with great delight. He (the Duke of Northumberland) was sorry he could not return the compliment with regard to the speech of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture, because he accused them—or rather he did not accuse them, because he was good enough to exclude the House of Lords—but he accused the other landlords of England of wishing to keep to the stern old rule that everything was theirs upon the earth and below the earth. In the first place, that was not a very incorrect assertion of the rights of property, but if his words meant anything, they did mean that the landlords of England had used their power in an oppressive manner. With all due respect to the noble Lord, he considered that he had no ground for that charge, and although it was perfectly true that in every class there were certain political black sheep, he would like to remind him of one fact which he and those who had framed this measure had entirely forgotten, viz., that,

  1449
  as there were more tenants in the world than landlords, there were more black sheep among the tenants than there were among the landlords. In all this legislation there was not one single safeguard for the landlord against the tenant of the same value as there was for the tenant against the landlord. Before going further, he would return to this question of the new principle of not allowing a man at the conclusion for his agreement to re-let his land as he liked. He had to let it "according to the principles of good estate management." He would put a case. A man took a lease for ninety years. That lease expired. He received notice, and went, or was about to go, and the landlord intended to take that farm into hand, and to put, perhaps, his eldest son on it in order that he might learn farming. Some people thought that a very wise thing to do if the son was going to hold much property, but was it "good estate management"? He thought the young gentleman would very probably mismanage the farm—which was, indeed, partly the object of letting him farm, in order that he might make mistakes and learn by experience. But that, he imagined, would be an impossible process under this clause, unless large compensation was given to the outgoing tenant. If the noble Lord (Earl Carrington) thought that this Bill was really in favour of the tenants, he was making a very great mistake. He thought it should rather be called "The Annoyance of Good Tenants Bill." He could only repeat what he had ventured to say the other night, that every yearly agreement would have to be called in, and nothing was more disagreeable to a tenant than the suspicion that the terms under which he held would be modified in any way. Not only that, but in a great number of cases more than one name was mentioned in the agreement. In every one of those cases the landlord would have to call in all the agreements and expunge all the names but one, because otherwise, as the existence of two or three names in an agreement would form a partnership, there would be no conclusion of agreement at all unless that was done. What would be the consequence to the tenant? First
  1450
  of all, it would be against the traditions of many estates, and tenants were very fond of having their relations included in the agreement. He would like to know whether the Government had considered, or was aware, that if these names were not allowed to be put into the lease, tenants would be liable to increased death duties. He had about eighty-five such tenancies on his own estates, and when he called in those agreements, and put only one name in them, those tenants' families would have to pay death duties which they had never had to pay before. Did the noble Lord imagine that this Bill was going to be very popular under those circumstances? And what was going to be the case in small holdings? He saw that the other day the noble Lord had received a deputation from small holders, and had stated that he was very glad to encourage them. Did he think this Bill was going to encourage landlords to break up their farms into small holdings? Did he imagine for one moment that when all these complicated settlements had to take place with every tenant, landlords would wish to have more tenants than they could help on their land? Of course not. It was a direct discouragement to small tenancies, and, what was even worse, he thought it was a very great deterrent to small ownerships. He was told there were parts of the country already where small owners to some extent existed—they all knew that they were very few and far between—where the owners were aghast at the prospect of what would happen under this Bill. The way in which that worked was very plain. A man might be an able-bodied man, and have a son or two at home, and he got on in his small freehold very well. But he knew that: some day he would be gathered to his fathers, and that then his widow would probably have to let. What would be the prospect of a widow, who was not, generally, a very good person to manage business? What would be her condition when she had let her lands, and was face to face with all the conditions which the noble Lord had put into the Bill? It was a most retrogressive measure, and he thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wemyss, was perfectly justified in raising this question upon Clause 4,

  1451
  which was the essence, as had been confessed, of the Bill. He could not quite see the argument of the noble and learned Lord when he said that the whole essence of the Bill was in Clause 4. The whole mischief of the Bill was in Clause 4, or almost the whole of it. That, he admitted, but he should hardly have thought that a representative of His Majesty's Government would have said that in a Bill of some ten clauses the balance were of no value, and were not an improvement upon the present practice. Surely all these provisions in regard to game, cropping, and all the rest of it, were of some value in noble Lords' eyes, and they were not going to put the whole merit of the Bill into Clause 4. He was sorry to have detained their Lordships at that late hour upon a matter which he quite agreed was one rather for Second Reading than for Report; but as they had not been afforded an opportunity before of calling attention to the mischief of Clause 4, he thought they had every right to protest against it now.
  LORD BARNARDsaid he could not vote for the exclusion of the clause. He was perfectly convinced, after making considerable inquiries upon the subject, that there was a strong feeling on the part of agricultural tenants that in some cases they were unduly displaced. He was not going to follow the noble Duke into the details of the clause. The question before the House was whether, on the general principle, tenants should have any compensation in the event of being dispossessed without sufficient reason. As far as his own estates were concerned—although his experience was not limited to one county, but extended over several counties in England—there I was no reason for complaint on the part of tenants at all. But from inquiries he had ascertained that here and there—particularly in the midland counties—cases of the kind did now and then occur, and if that was so he considered that in the interests of the farming community generally it was only right that tenants should be protected against such treatment. Therefore, if the noble Lord pressed the matter to a division, he should certainly vote against him.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEtrusted that the Committee would be guided by the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn), and not vote against the clause. He did not pretend that he had any great admiration for it, nor did he attach much credence to the statement of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture, who had said that the clause was earnestly desired by the agricultural community. There had no doubt been an agitation of a kind going on lately in the country, but it was what he should call a one-man agitation, personally conducted by the noble Earl himself. But what they were face to face with was the fact that their Lordships' House had passed the Second Reading of this Bill, and that as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had told them just now, this clause was really the central clause of the Bill, and there could be no doubt whatever that its rejection meant the failure of the Bill. Speaking quite frankly, he would be very sorry indeed to see the death of this Bill laid at their Lordships' door. He thought the clause, bad as it was, was much more innocuous than many noble Lords supposed. It had certainly become very much more innocuous since the Bill had been before their Lordships' House. He thought, for example, the noble Duke who had addressed their Lordships so earnestly just now was sincere in his belief that one effect would be to oblige the landlord to renew a tenancy at its expiration. As he understood the clause, the question of compensation only arose on the tenant's quitting his holding. Therefore, that to which the landlord was exposed was not a liability to be compelled to renew the tenancy, but a liability to pay a certain amount of compensation in a very extreme case, which most of their lordships believed would arise very infrequently indeed.
  LORD SALTOUNwished to ask Earl Carrington one question. He had said that the clause did not include tenant right or dual ownership. Did it relate to fixity of tenure or continuity of tenure?
  EARL CARRINGTON: Continuity of tenure.
  On Question, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that the next Amendment extended over several paragraphs, and as it was practically a drafting Amendment it might be the pleasure of the House to take it en bloc.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 4, after the word 'stock,' to insert the words 'on or used in connection with the holding,' and also to insert the words 'Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable—(a) unless the tenant has given to the landlord a reasonable opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce, and stock as aforesaid; or (b) unless the tenant has, within two months after he has received notice to quit or a refusal to grant a renewal of the tenancy as the case may be, given to the landlord notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation under this
  1454
  clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 18.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Stanhope, E.

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

  Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

  Crewe, E. (L. President).

  Waldegrave, E.

  Emly, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Churchill, V.

  Glantawe, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hill, V.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

  Haversham, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Addington, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Chesterfield, E. (Teller.]

  Armstrong, L.

  Newton, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Balfour, L.

  North, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Overtoun, L.

  Craven, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Belper, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Fortescue, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Boston, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Braye, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Stanley, of Alderley, L.

  Morley, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Weardale, L.

  Portsmouth. E.

  Denman, L, [Teller.]

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Falkland, V.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Dartrey, E

  Clinton, L.

  Stewart, of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]

  Devon, E.

  Forester, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Hastings, L.

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

  Morton, E.

  Middleton, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  section; or (c) where the tenant with whom a contract of tenancy was made has died within three months before the date of the notice to quit, or in the case of a lease for years before the refusal to grant a renewal; or (d) if the claim for compensation is not made within three months after the time at which the tenant quits the holding."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that he had an Amendment upon the Paper which he did not now desire to move, except as regards its last sentence, which might come in after the word "holding" in sub-section (d) of the Amendment just moved by Earl Carrington. The words he proposed were—
  "Unless notice of intention to make such a claim shall be given to the landlord not less

  1455
  than three months before the determination or expiration of the tenancy, and unless full particulars of such claim shall be delivered to the landlord within one month."
  He thought that was only carrying out more fully the noble Lord's intention.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNdid not think the words would come in properly where the noble Duke proposed them. They must be very careful what they were doing, as that was the last opportunity they would have of amending the Bill. Paragraph (d) limited the time within which a claim might be made after the tenant had quitted his holding, but what the noble Duke wished was that particulars should be sent in long before that.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that if the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn), would look at his Amendment he would see that it was really the noble Lord's Amendment, except so far as the last words were concerned.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: "Within one month" of what?
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Within one month after the three months.
  EARL CARRINGTONthought the noble Duke's point was met by subsection (b), which required the tenant to give notice in writing of his intention to claim compensation. He hoped the noble Duke would not press his Amendment, as he thought it would be hard upon the tenant.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwas afraid he was rather irregular to speak so often upon the Report stage, but he would like to remind the noble Earl that there was nothing particularly legal in his Amendment, but it was merely directed to securing that the landlord should have full particulars of the claim. Surely that was a proper thing for the landlord to have.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he honestly thought the landlord was properly protected, and he again expressed the hope that the noble Duke would not press the Amendment.
  The Duke of Northumberland.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Very well; I will not press it.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved to insert a new paragraph:—
  "(e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act.'
  He said that in Committee words were inserted providing that this section should not apply to leases of nineteen years or longer in duration. He thought that on consideration their Lordships might be of opinion that that went too far, because it would exclude all future leases from the clause as well as existing leases. He had ventured to submit to their Lordships that leases were really in a different position, not only in other parts of the Bill, but also in this clause, from the ordinary year to year tenancy. When two persons entered into a lease—a lease at any rate for nineteen years—each party knew very well that he was entering into an agreement which would in the ordinary course of things be subject to revision or reconsideration at the end of nineteen years, and therefore the suggestion that there would be a capricious determination of the tenancy at that time as there might be in the case of a yearly tenancy, could hardly be said to apply, at any rate in the case of leases made before the passing of this Act. Neither landlord nor tenant could have imagined that there would be a law passed which would prevent a revision of the agreement at the end of the nineteen years. Both parties in the future could take care of themselves. If His Majesty's Government desired to suggest to the landlords—as they did suggest by this Bill—that they should substitute a yearly tenancy for a lease, they could do so; and if the parties preferred a lease notwithstanding that, they could enter into a lease, knowing quite well what might happen at the end of it. Therefore, he had prepared this new paragraph omitting from the operation of this clause only leases for fourteen years or more current at the passing of this Act. He hoped the noble Lord would see that at any rate it was a considerable improvement from his point of view upon the words as they now stood in the Bill—that it was in fact a concession to meet

  1457
  the objections which he had raised to the excluding of leases from the clause, and yet an attempt, as he did not think could be denied, to do justice in the case of existing leases. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following now paragraph: '(e) in the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of this Act.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTONquite agreed that it was a concession, and an attempt to do justice to existing leases, but he very deeply regretted that it was absolutely impossible for the Government to accept it. He had already said what he had to say on the question of leaseholders being exempted from the benefits of the Act, and he did not now wish to intrude longer on the time of the House. He hoped the noble Viscount would not think it discourteous in him not to reply to his argument at length. He had already stated his objections, and would therefore content himself with making the very strongest protest in his power against the proposal. He was absolutely in the hands of the House, but he hoped his protest would be taken with a view to save the trouble of going to a division.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHhoped that Viscount St. Aldwyn would press his Amendment. He would rather see the Bill lost than that this Amendment should not be adhered to. He did not believe that there was any precedent whatever for such a proposal as that two men should make a bargain for a period of years, both knowing that it was to come to an end at a certain time, and that in the middle of the period there should be somebody coming along and saying, "You are to have privileges for which you have never bargained." There was not the smallest justification for such a proposal. He had himself voted for the retention of this clause. He had never given a vote with greater reluctance in his life, but he gave it because he thought, after their proceedings the other night, they were in honour committed, after having amended the clause, to keep it in the Bill.
  1458
  But he voted for it in the hope that at any rate they would receive some consideration in respect of the interference with their leases in Scotland which was set up by this clause. He had appealed to two noble Lords from Scotland a few moments ago—the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for the Colonies—and he had asked a question which he thought demanded an answer. He thought it was a fair and reasonable question, and he begged now to repeat it, and to ask whether, when the Government took up this private Bill, they realised the effect it would have on leases in Scotland, and resolved to break down the Scottish system of land tenure. The noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, had spoken about penalising the leaseholder. There was no penalty on the leaseholder. He got his full bargain carried out to the end of his term. He got everything he asked for, and had no right to expect more. He (Lord Balfour) held that the First Lord of the Admiralty had given their Lordships a practical promise to do something for the interest of leases. He had promised to introduce certain provisions which would especially meet the case of nineteen years leases. That promise was not even restricted to existing leases. It had a general effect, and he did not think he misinterpreted the noble Lord's intention in saying that when he made that promise he intended to apply it to all nineteen years leases, whether current now or current hereafter. The request before the House at the present moment was not made with regard to all nineteen years leases in the future, although he thought that might fairly be asked, but was merely to restrict the operation of the clause from applying to existing bargains. Not one single argument or reason had been advanced by the Government or their supporters against this very moderate proposal. The hour was so late that he would refrain from quoting speeches made in Scotland by the noble Earl himself, but the President of the Board of Agriculture had gone as far as he could possibly go towards admitting in Scotland that for the protection of the Scottish tenant this Bill and this clause,

  1459
  was not Required. They had heard about tenants being given notice in an unreasonable manner. He would like to ask whether, by parity of reasoning, the landlord to whom a tenant gave unreasonable notice ought not to have compensation for his tenant going away unreasonably. Why should there be a difference of that kind as between landlord and tenant? He was afraid some of his arguments were not being listened to by the noble Lords on the Front Ministerial Bench, who were continually conversing with each other. He was sorry to be insistent, but he did not think that noble Lords in England had the slightest idea of the way in which Scottish customs were being broken into by this measure. It was the most unjust thing he had ever known since he entered Parliament. He thought he was fairly entitled to ask why the tenant should be the favourite of the Government at the expense of the landlord. If the tenant gave capricious notice to the landlord, why should not the landlord have compensation? He confessed that he expected his suggestion to be ridiculed, and he did not make it with any hope of its being accepted. But if the tenant was to have compensation under certain circumstances he did not see why the landlord under corresponding circumstances on the other side should not also have compensation. He should certainly urge that this Amendment be inserted in the Bill, and, so far as he was concerned, if it was rejected in another place he would do his very utmost to insist upon it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he would make a third appeal to the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as to whether, as a matter of courtesy, they would give him some reply to the Question which he had twice addressed to them.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that so far as he was concerned he must admit that he had held out certain hopes, which he was authorised to do. For his part he thought it was a very reasonable proposal, but he was prepared
  1460
  to support the Government of which he was a Member, and therefore he should stand by the Government in this matter.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that the other Question, which was equally courteously put, was whether, when the Government resolved to take up this English private Member's Bill, they realised the serious inroads which it would make into the Scottish practice.
  Consequential and drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND,in moving to insert in Clause 6, after the word "intention," the words "together with particulars of such repairs," said that a noble Lord had moved in Committee an Amendment to the effect that the tenants should furnish "plans of such repairs." His Majesty's Government resisted that, and, as he thought, very naturally, because he did not see how the tenant could be expected to give plans—indeed some of the work might not necessitate any plans at all. At the same time, he thought it desirable that the tenant should furnish particulars of repairs; and he trusted the Government would make no objection to that.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 30, after the word 'intention,' to insert the words 'together with particulars of such repairs."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I have no objection to that.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON,in moving to leave out the word "at" and to insert the words "within one month," remarked that it was merely a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 33, to leave out the word 'at,' and insert the words 'within one month."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid it was nothing of the kind. Lord Carrington was perhaps unaware that he had already accepted that suggestion in

  1461
  Committee; but, if he had any doubt about it, he would state what had been said. Lord Carrington had proposed to insert "one month," and he (the Ear of Camperdown) observed that he had no particular objection to "one month," but that he thought it rather a short time. Ultimately the noble Lord agreed to accept "three months"; and now the noble Lord, having accepted that, said that this was a mere drafting Amendment. Would the noble Lore explain what he meant?
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that he would explain exactly what he meant The fact was that he had forgotten the incident, but, of course, he entirely accepted what the noble Earl had said.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words, 'and in its application to Scotland on the first removal term day thereafter."—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will the noble Lord explain this Amendment?
  EARL CARRINGTONexplained that the Amendment was in accordance with Lord Saltoun's proposal, namely, to put off the date on which the Bill came into operation to November, 1909.
  LORD SALTOUN: No.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid the date was to be the 1st November, 1909—that was the first of the removal term days. He hoped the Amendment would not be objected to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought there was no objection to this Amendment, provided the noble Earl would assure the Committee that the year "1909" was to stand.
  LORD SALTOUNexplained that he had not meant what was suggested by Earl Carrington. He meant the Whitsunday term, which was the first term; and he had mentioned it merely because it was a term day. But, if the noble Earl would accept "1909" as suggested
  1462
  by the Earl of Camperdown, he did not wish to oppose the Amendment
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNpointed out that Earl Carrington had accepted "1909" already.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought the House ought to have a distinct guarantee from the noble Earl that if they admitted the deletion of these two lines "1909" would be adhered to with all the strength of the Government in another place.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he had given a pledge to the noble Viscount that he accepted "1909," and he was prepared to stand by that pledge.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON,in moving the insertion of a new clause with special provisions as to Scotland, observed that he did so in redemption of a pledge given in another place to submit these matters for their Lordships' consideration. He had tried to get the Amendment moved by an independent Member, but had failed; and as the pledge was given in the other House, he now moved it himself. The House would probably consider that the Amendment raised, some important questions of principle, which at that time of night it was impossible adequately to discuss; but the pledge having been given, he stood by his word, and moved the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause, In Scotland—(a) So much of the Ground Game Act, 1880, as limits the number or prescribes the classes of persons who may be authorised under that Act to kill or take ground game otherwise than with firearms shall be repealed; (b) Any agreement made after the commencement of this Act by which an incoming tenant undertakes to pay to the outgoing tenant any compensation payable to him for improvements shall be void."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the House was entitled to ask Earl Carrington whether he made himself responsible for the proposed new clause. This was a Government Bill, and the noble Earl was the Minister in charge of it. He had always understood that

  1463
  a Minister who put a clause for-ward in a Government Bill made himself responsible for it. Was the noble Earl responsible for this clause? Because, if not, he would move to strike it out without any further conversation.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he had already told the House that a pledge had been given in another place, and he felt bound to move the insertion of the clause so that the matters contained therein might be submitted for consideration. He considered that if a pledge was given it ought to be carried out; and therefore he had put this Amendment on the Paper. The noble Lord was at perfect liberty to do whatever he pleased with regard to it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNthought this was the most extraordinary thing he had ever heard of in connection with Ministerial responsibility. In the first place, a pledge was given somewhere else that some proposal was to be made in their Lordships' House with regard to a Bill which in the other House was a private Member's Bill. The noble Lord had endeavoured to get among his friends in their Lordships' House some person who would move the Amendment. He appeared to have been unsuccessful, but he now came forward and made, the proposal himself. In the first place he had told their Lordships he was responsible.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Surely at this time of night it is not worth while to pursue this matter much further. The noble Earl (Earl Carrington) has placed an Amendment on the Paper and he has intimated that on both sides of the House noble Lords may vote either for or against it as they please. Under the circumstances, I submit that to pursue the matter any further at this period of the evening would be a mere waste of time.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that as he now understood that the Government were perfectly indifferent as to whether the proposed clause was inserted or not, he would vote against it.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Then (Standing Order No. 39 having been suspended): Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.
  *LORD BARNARD,in pursuance of notice, rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries whether it is proposed to hold an inquiry into the system of agricultural education, and, if so, when and what will be the scope of such inquiry. He said that some twelve months ago certain University colleges engaged in teaching agriculture attended at the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of urging their claims for further financial support. Unfortunately, at that moment there was a hiatus in the office of the President of the Board of Agriculture; but the deputation was most courteously received by the Permanent Secretary, and they were assured that the new President of the Board of Agriculture would be consulted as to whether anything could be done. In reply to a question on the subject which he had addressed to him in the summer, the President of the Board of Agriculture (Lord Carrington) himself suggested that probably the best plan would be to hold some inquiry into the system of agricultural education in University colleges. Since that date he (Lord Barnard) had communicated with a very large number of representatives of those colleges and he had received—although there was some regret that no immediate prospect of financial assistance was held out—answers indicating a very general desire that some inquiry should be held on the subject. There were two points put forward; and those points he would respectfully urge upon the President of the Board of Agriculture. The first was, that any inquiry should not be limited exclusively to the question of agricultural education, but should extend also to the question of agricultural research. The other point was that any inquiry should embrace what was being done in other countries. There was a general feeling among those engaged in higher education in agriculture in England that, though England was a most important agricultural country, the Government was very

  1465
  far behind the United States and other countries, in the assistance it gave,
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he was glad to be able to inform his noble friend that he had obtained the consent of the Government to set up a Committee to inquire into this matter, and he hoped to have the assistance of his noble friend as a member of that Committee. He hoped that Lord Barnard would allow him to consult with him on the matter, as he had not yet been able to settle definitely the scope of the inquiry, nor to arrange altogether the composition of the Committee. The Committee, however, would be appointed next year, and he hoped he could rely upon the assistance of his noble friend.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments, and reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to order).
  *LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid he would not occupy the House for more than a few minutes; but, as he was responsible for moving the first two Amendments which had been disagreed to, he thought it due to himself, and only courteous to the House, to say a word or two in respect of the Commons' disagreement to their Lordships' Amendments. On neither of those Amendments was there any division in another place; and therefore, on that ground, even if it stood alone, he should not ask their Lordships to persevere with their Amendments. Under other circumstances, he would have been inclined to ask that the first of the two Amendments, in an amended form—the one in which they had inserted the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," should be retained in a modified form, retaining the word "peaceably." He was notable to understand why that word was objected to; it was in every Bill presented to Parliament before the General Election, and it seemed to him in itself to be a reasonable thing. But the most striking thing in connection with these two Amendments was the reason given by the House of Commons for their disagreement. With regard
  1466
  to the first Amendment—and perhaps it was worth while having the words definitely on record—the Commons disagreed—
  "Because the peaceable exercise of the right conferred by the clause is sufficiently safeguarded by the words as they stood in the clause as it left the Commons."
  He only wished he could think so. In his opinion, at any rate, it was more than doubtful. But he took note of the fact that those who were foremost in leading the agitation for this Bill, and who would have an important part to play in its working, had, by agreeing to this reason, in his opinion, given an undertaking, not that they would remain peaceable if violent measures were adopted in the course of picketing, but that they would, as in duty bound, do all they could to see that nothing was allowed to be done contrary to peacefulness. The reason for disagreeing to the second Amendment was at least as striking. This was an Amendment which he had moved on the Report stage of the Bill, and which the noble Lord on the Woolsack accepted with the generous remark that it was more scientific in its wording than the provision which it sought to displace. He told them quite frankly, however, that he was not sure that the experts in another place would accept it. As a matter of fact, they had not accepted it, and they had given as their reason:—
  "Because the object of the Amendment is sufficiently met by the words of the original clause."
  Some day or other that would have to be construed judicially in their Lordships' House, and he could only trust that the beliefs and hopes, which he had no doubt were honestly entertained in another place, would prove to be well-founded, and that the clauses in this Bill, which would shortly become an Act, would be found sufficient to meet the intention which they were supposed to carry out.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that in regard to the first Amendment he really thought it was unnecessary. The law stood sentinel alongside all that was done under this Act, and would see that peace was preserved. He entertained no doubt whatever that the addition of those words would make no

  1467
  difference to the Bill. In regard to the second Amendment, it was quite true, as Lord Balfour had said, that his own view had been that the words which the noble Lord proposed were more scientific and better; but he was persuaded that it was neither the wish nor the intention of the men to break the law with violence, nor was it their wish to withdraw their property from the ordinary rules of litigation attaching to property. The men thought, and the House of Commons (which was full of experts on this subject) also thought, that the words standing in the Bill were effective for that purpose; and he had not the least doubt they were right, although, as he had said, he himself would have preferred the language proposed by Lord Balfour. He believed their Lordships would find that these men wished to use, as he believed they had proposed, this Bill in good faith for the purpose of carrying it out honestly.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdesired to say with regard to the third Amendment, which he had had the honor of moving, that he had only done so because he and those who thought with him honestly believed that employers did not, under this Bill, receive the protection which they believed the Government intended they should have. Words had now been inserted in the Bill by the law officers of the Crown which were intended to protect employers, and he of course accepted those words wholeheartedly, believing that the Government intended to give them protection under the Bill, and believing also that they had an earnest in these words that if they were found not to be so protected in the future, they would have the Government on their side in guaranteeing them the protection which they were intended to have.
  On Question, Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments agreed to, and the Lords' Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order.)
  LORD BELPERthought it would be within the recollection of the House
  1468
  that there was some discussion on an Amendment which he had moved to Clause 2. On the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor he had put in the word "or," instead of "and" at the end of Clause 2 (1) (a), so that that part of the clause read—
  "That such want, defect, or inaccuracy was occasioned by mistake, absence from the United Kingdom, or other reasonable cause; or (b) the failure to make a claim."
  and so on. Those words were put in conditionally on the understanding that they should be reconsidered on Report. He had, however, found that they did not at all carry out his object, which was to guard against the time for claiming being extended where it might prejudice the defence that would have to be made by the employers. He would only say that if words could be inserted in somewhat like the original form—
  "Provided that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim,"
  he would be glad to have them inserted, but he had rather understood, on the former stage of the Bill, that those words would not be agreed to by the other House. If the Government accepted them, he would be willing to have them put in that form. Otherwise, he would move to omit the words which had been added, leaving the clause without the words inserted on the Committee stage. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would state what his view was with regard to those words, he would then take whatever course he thought desirable.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Amendment was one moved by Lord Belper, and the Lord Chancellor had suggested an Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment. That was adopted by Lord Belper, who now found that it scarcely carried out his intention. He (Earl Beauchamp) thought it better, as the Amendment did not meet with the noble Lord's wishes, that he should move an Amendment now; because on the whole it would probably be more in accordance with his wishes that the clause or sub-clause should return to its original condition, than that it should go down to another place as it stood.
  LORD BELPERsaid the alternative he proposed was that he should put in the

  1469
  words, "provided that" and then put in the rest of the words. That was what he would prefer to move, if that would be acceptable. He thought he had better move that the words "provided that" be inserted, instead of "or."
  EARL BEAUCHAMPwas afraid there was very little chance of the Amendment in that shape being accepted in another place, and therefore he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment, but would be satisfied with the other course suggested, namely, leaving out all the words after "cause."
  LORD BELPERsaid his object was not to put forward either unreasonable amendments or amendments which would not be accepted by the other House. Under those circumstances, he would ask to have the words struck out after the word "cause" to the end.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 20, to strike out after the word 'cause' to the end of the sub-section."—(Lord Belper.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that on Clause 8 he wished to move a small Amendment. This was a clause which the draughtsman had found it very difficult to make really satisfactory, and they hoped this would be the last addition to it, and would give no loophole whatever to any lawyer to find a way out. The Amendment he had to propose was, to leave out "requisite" before the word "information," and to insert the word "such" in its place; and in line 12, after the word "furnished," to insert—
  "Or is not sufficient to enable that employer to take proceedings under the next following proviso."
  He thought their Lordships would see that that was really designed for the protection of employers. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 8, after 'furnished' to insert the words 'or is not sufficient to enable that employer to take proceedings under the next following proviso."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD BELPERsaid there was a small consequential Amendment which would have to be inserted in the schedule. At page 22, line 16, the word "applicants" should be in the singular. The fact was, the word "either" had been inserted, instead of the word "both," in the Committee stage; and in order to make the provision read properly, it would have to be "on payment by the applicant," instead of "on payment by the applicants."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he had now to deal with a very important Amendment, which had been inserted in Schedule 1. He was afraid the mistake was partly owing to his own fault. They had been discussing the question of commutation, voluntary and compulsory, and as the Bill was somewhat complicated, he was unable to point out to the noble Lord, at the time he asked the Question, the provisions in the Bill which dealt with voluntary commutation. The wish of the noble Lord was that there should be nothing in this paragraph of the schedule which would prevent voluntary commutation; and at the time he (Earl Beauchamp) was unable to point out that voluntary commutation was dealt with under an entirely different section—he thought Section 17—while this paragraph dealt entirely with the question of compulsory commutation. It was rather because he was unable to satisfy the noble Lord that the Amendment was inserted by a somewhat narrower majority than was usual in their Lordships' House. Under those circumstances, he would ask the noble Lord (Lord Belper) to allow the words as they originally stood to go back, on condition that a proviso was inserted to make it perfectly clear. The words he proposed were—
  "Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preventing agreements being made for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum."
  He thought that made it perfectly clear; and he might remind the noble Lord that money obtained in commutation was very often squandered; and that the Digby Committee laid great stress upon commutation.
  LORD BELPERsaid the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp)had been good enough

  1471
  to communicate this suggestion to him before the discussion of this stage of the Bill; and he thought that the words proposed by the noble Earl really made clear what he was anxious about with regard to this paragraph. His object was not to limit the sum which might be assessed when the employer made application, but to make it quite clear that an agreement could be come to to pay a less sum as between the two parties themselves. If the words proposed were inserted, they would carry out his view, and would allow of such agreements being made. Those agreements had been very numerous in the past, and it would be very much to the interest of employer and employee if they were allowed to be made in the future also. Under these circumstances, he begged to withdraw the words which had been inserted; and he would ask the noble Lord to move the words which he had suggested instead.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he was very much obliged to the noble Lord (Lordhelper) and begged to move accordingly.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 23, line 16, to insert the words 'Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preventing agreements being made for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  *LORD KINNAIRDdid not know whether he might, without notice, move the omission of provisoes (c) (d) and (e) from paragraph 9 of the second schedule of the Bill. In another place, provisoes (a) and (b) were put in; and a good many of those interested in the working of the Bill thought that they would fully meet the case; but somehow while they were left in, (c) (d) and (e) were not deleted. He would not go into the matter at any length; but their Lordships were aware that in the working out of these compensation appeals the expenses and the lawyers' bills ran up very high; and this further appeal which was allowed to those interested in the workman's case would add very considerably to the expenses both of the workman and of the employer. For instance, a case had lately come up in which one
  Lord Belper
  1472
  of the unions found the money in order that the case might go on; and, although the workman was quite satisfied, and eventually got what the company had settled with him for, he was told to claim for the full six months. Eventually, he was exonerated from the costs, and the company was allowed to go against the union. He did not know whether the Government had thought of provisoes (c) (d) and (e) being unnecessary; or, if so, whether they would consent to leave them out.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPwas afraid that it was quite impossible for His Majesty's Government at this late period to accept such a serious Amendment as the one suggested without notice. They had had a very long—perhaps he might say a very interesting—discussion on a previous occasion, dealing with the general machinery of the Bill. A suggestion was not made to this effect by any noble Lord. They had been unfortunate in not having the presence of the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) on that occasion, and he hoped that the noble Lord would accept his assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government that these special clauses were put in with the approval of the Government and he was sorry they could not now omit them.
  *LORD KINNAIRDsaid he would not press the matter. It was to have been moved by someone last night, but apparently it was not done. There was, therefore, nothing to do now but to let it drop.
  Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX, having been suspended); Bill read 3a,with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that he had two Amendments to move. They were not Amendments of substance. The first was to make the definition quite clear in order that the Bill might apply to various places which it was held might possibly not be included if this Amendment was not carried. It came in after the words "factory or workshop," and the idea was to include these words which were similar to the other words

  1473
  which had also appeared in other legislation of similar character.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 29, after the word 'workshop' to insert the words 'including any place which for the purpose of the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, with respect to accident, is a factory or workshop, or is included in the word 'factory' or 'workshop,' or is part of a factory or workshop."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that the other Amendment which he had to move was rendered necessary because the Bill had been upon the table of their Lordships' House since February or March. A great deal of time had elapsed since then, and it was possible the Secretary of State would not wish every provision of the Bill to come into operation at once. The object of the Amendment was to enable the postponement of certain portions of the Bill if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, such postponements might seem advisable.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 9, after the word 'seven' to insert the words 'but the Secretary of State may appoint a later date not being later than the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eight, for any special provision of the Act to come into operation, and if a later date is so appointed, that special provision shall not come into operation until that later date."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading reud.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have to apologise for not having been able to bring in this Bill last night. At the time that it ought to have come on I was engaged upon business which, as events have turned out, might as well have been left alone. I will endeavour to be as brief as possible in introducing this Bill, although the matter is one of considerable importance, and one which it would not be respectful to introduce to your
  1474
  Lordships' House without a few preliminary observations. This question of the feeding of school children, and of whether legislation should be brought to bear upon it, and if so, what legislation, is one which has been before the country for some considerable time, and it is one of those questions about which people have been apt to say that something ought to be done, without having any very clear idea of what particular action, should be taken. The matter has been reported upon by a number of different Committees and Commissions. In 1903 the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland drew attention to this question of feeding school children, but did not recommend that the rates should be employed for the purpose. Then that well known Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration which sat in 1904 made suggestions which, speaking generally, are very much on the lines of this present Bill. Then there was another Inter-Departmental Committee in 1905, on Medical Inspection and Feeding, which also dealt with the matter, but its terms of reference did not allow it to argue the question as to whether rate aid should be applied or not. Then in the spring of the present year (1906) a Select Committee of the House of Commons at on the whole question. They went exhaustively into the matter; they examined twenty-eight skilled witnesses, including experienced officials, members of the late Government, school teachers, and a great number of people who, in one way or another, were distinguished experts on this question; and it is upon their recommendations that this Bill is based, which I will ask your Lordships to read a second time.
  It is important to remember and, in view of some of the provisions, extremely important to remember, that this Bill is purely permissive in character. It con-contains no compulsion of any kind, and I hope that fact may reconcile your Lordships to such provisions as you may consider to be of a novel character. Of course the question is mainly and largely urban. It is in the great cities that the question is most urgent; but still there is some demand for such provision in the rural districts, and I think it is a fact that the association of county councils expressed themselves favourably disposed towards

  1475
  the adoption of some measure of this kind within their areas.
  The Bill proposes to create a system of what we may call school restaurants, and, as your Lordships, I daresay, know, even at present there is a very great amount of feeding of poor school children by voluntary agencies. I confess that until I had looked into this matter I had no conception to what an extent this was done. In London there are 299 schools, according to the last Report, in which, in the course of one winter, 30,000 children were fed. At one time, in the course of the winter, 80,000 meals a week were given in this way. Then last year in West Ham about 750,000 of such meals were given; in Birmingham 600,000; in Bradford, Liverpool, Salford, and Hull about 200,000 each, and also, in some smaller places, such as Reading, Gloucester, and Wednesbury, a very considerable number of meals were provided. That means a vast amount of voluntary, most excellent, but still unregulated work, and it is also, of course, important to remember that in no case, in those voluntary arrangements, is any of the cost recovered, from the parents. It is proposed by the first clause of the Bill that the local education authority may take steps for providing meals for children by associating themselves with such committees as have carried on the work heretofore, called School Canteen Committees, and they—
  "May aid that committee by furnishing such land, buildings, furniture and apparatus, and such officers and servants as may be necessary for the organisation, preparation, and service of such meals."
  That services, and the apparatus, buildings, and so on, it is proposed should be paid for out of the rates. The second clause deals with the question of payment, and I think there will be a general disposition to agree that where payments can be recovered from parents who are able to pay, it is desirable that that should be done, in order to maintain the sense of parental responsibility; and it is proposed, therefore, to take power to recover both payments provided by voluntary subscription, and also payments made out of the rates, which appears to us to be a very distinct advantage. And it certainly does seem from experience in some cases that there are a very large number of parents who were quite willing to pay a fee if called upon to do
  1476
  so. In the cripple schools in London a good deal of feeding of this kind is done, for obvious reasons. The poor little cripple children cannot go home to their meals, and in the schools in London a great number of meals are provided in this way. Last year there were 167,000 such dinners given in London for Defective Children Schools. The parents paid of the cost nearly £1,400, and the-Dinner Fund was only drawn on for £179. That is very satisfactory evidence of the willingness of the parents to pay, because none of that money, as a matter of fact, could have been recovered by legal process.
  When you come to Clause 3 you approach rather more debateable ground. In Clause 3 the rates are called in. It is there provided that under certain circumstances a local authority may spend out of the rates such sum as may meet the cost of provision of food. That is a very carefully guarded clause. The object of the Bill is that the rates should in no way supplant the voluntary subscriptions, but that they should supplement them if it can be shewn that voluntary subscriptions have entirely broken down, and the local authority may apply to the Board of Education for leave to make this provision out of the rates. The Board of course, would inquire into all the circumstances, but in no case may the amount reach more than a rate of a halfpenny, and absolute necessity must be proved, and also that no other funds are available. Of course, while a halfpenny rate is allowed, it would very often mean that only a very small fraction of a farthing would be required, because, as your Lordships know, in London, the halfpenny rate produces a very large amount, and what it is contemplated might happen under this Bill is that after allowing for all the voluntary agencies, there might be a deficit of £4,000 or £5,000, which would be a fraction of a farthing on the rate of London, which the Board of Education might sanction the payment of out of the rates.
  Now it is argued, of course, that it is very dangerous bringing in the rates at all, because the moment you do so, the voluntary subscriptions will cease altogether. That may be so, and, if so, it is of course an extremely regrettable circumstance. But it is not

  1477
  quite easy to see why a combination of voluntary effort and rate aid should not be possible. It is done to some extent, as I daresay some of your Lordships know, in other countries, and it seems tome that if people could only be brought to see that the rates may exercise a very valuable function in just supplying what is short in voluntary benevolence, a valuable service would be done, because I daresay it has often occurred to many of us that at no distant date something of the kind may be necessary in regard to some of our great hospitals. Everybody knows what a struggle it is for the hospital work—particularly, of course, of London—to be carried on. They are anxious, if possible, and very naturally, I think, to avoid recourse to public funds, but still it may have to be done some day, and if people can only be educated into believing that you could not have a better arrangement than for the State to find the absolutely necessary balance over and above what is provided by charity for such purposes it would be, I believe, a very valuable addition to the means by which great public objects of this sort are supported, and I think it is worth an effort to try and secure that, if possible.
  I might remind your Lordships that the Bill which is now no more, the Education Bill, contained a clause (Clause 24) which was received with unanimous applause by your Lordships—namely, a clause which authorised the education authority to assist—I forget the precise word, but certainly the word "assist" was there—to assist voluntary associations providing meals of that kind for children. That was precisely the same principle, and it was not then hinted that, because the education authority was called in to assist, necessarily the people would cease to provide for children in that way. The object of this clause is that where a number of meals are given they shall only be given in case of real need.
  I come to only one other point which is of some importance, and which I daresay may find favour with noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House. It is stated that if you are going to give free meals to anybody you ought to give them, not through the Education Department but through the Poor Law guardians. But that would not be at all easy to administer. There are a great many more Poor Law areas than
  1478
  education areas, and these areas are by no means coterminous. A child may often be living in one Poor Law area and attending a school situated in another. This is not a Local Government Board measure at all, but an Education Bill. The contention is that the provision of these meals is not a question of dealing with pauperism, but an incident or episode in the education of the children. These canteens are intended to be a part of the school. They are not intended to be workhouse kitchens; they are intended to be a part of the school; and we believe that a great deal of good may be done in them, not merely by feeding children who are starving, but by feeding the children who are stupidly fed at home in the manner which, as some of your Lordships, I daresay, know, obtains to an extraordinary extent among many of the poor. It is not at all an uncommon thing in these schools to find children who simply will not eat the kind of meal—porridge, for instance—given to them there. Unless they are given pickles, or something of that kind, of a high flavour, they refuse to look at any food at all. Therefore we hope that these school kitchens may have a distinctly educative influence. As regards this question of the board of guardians, I may remind your Lordships that in the spring of 1905 a Resolution was moved in the House of Commons empowering local education authorities to ensure the feeding of children, and, where possible, to recover the cost. Then a very highly respected Member of the House, Sir George Bartley, moved an Amendment to the effect that the Poor Law guardians and not the local education authority should provide the food. He, however, was defeated by 100 to sixty-four, although I believe, as a matter of fact, the Government of that day supported him in the minority. That, I think, shows that there was a very strong feeling, even in the House which represented the views of noble Lords opposite, in favour of this particular provision, and I am very much afraid that if any attempt is made to substitute the Board of Guardians for the Board of Education in this matter it will be fatal to the Bill, which received an astonishing amount of support in another place. I do not remember the exact figures, but I know the minorities, though tolerably active

  1479
  in the discussion in the other House, were exceedingly small, ranging I believe from about fifty downwards.
  *LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: It was at three o'clock in the morning.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: But the majorities were considerable although the House was sitting at a late hour; and, had there been substantial opposition, hon. Members, even at three o'clock in the morning, would have opposed the Bill. If there are any other points to be raised we could deal with them in Committee. I hope noble Lords will not object to the Committee stage being taken to-morrow, notwithstanding the late period at which, unfortunately, the Bill has been introduced.
  *LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: To-day, not to-morrow.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, it is very much to-day, I am afraid. I hope that noble Lords will hand in any Amendments they may have to-night, or to-morrow morning, in order that they may be in the possession of noble Lords when the Committee stage is reached, I have some reason to hope that at any rate, if it be found necessary to move Amendments, they may be of a simple character, involving straight, plain issues—not so much verbal Amendments, but Amendments embodying the desire of some noble Lords to express objections on points of principle; and, as I have said, I hope we may be able to take the Committee stage to-morrow.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  EARL CAWDOR: No one, I think, will be disposed to enter to-night into any discussion with respect to this measure, but I venture to suggest that your Lordships have some ground for complaint that a measure of this importance should only receive a Second Reading at one o'clock in the morning two days before the close of an autumn Session. I do not think it a reasonable course to adopt in regard to a Bill of any kind; certainly not in regard to a Bill of this sort. It is not like the concluding stage of a Bill, brought in to
  1480
  wind up the session, but a new Bill, taken at the very last moment, when discussion is practically impossible. I therefore enter a protest against action of this kind. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill suggests that all our Amendments should be made of a simple nature. I have never heard such a suggestion made before.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I made no such suggestion. I merely expressed the hope that Amendments might deal with simple issues. Of course, if noble Lords desire to make elaborate Amendments they may do so.
  EARL CAWDOR: the noble Earl suggested that Amendments should be of a particular kind.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I made no such suggestion at all.
  EARL CAWDOR: You suggested that Amendments might be of a very simple nature.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I suggested it, owing to the nature of the case, and I did not wish, in the least, to interfere with the discretion of noble Lords. I might mention an instance. I know Lord Balfour is about to move an Amendment excluding Scotland from the operation of the Bill. He might do that very simply. Some other noble Lord might leave out Clause 3. But from the nature of the case it seemed to me that Amendments might be of a simple character, and not of the kind we had in the case of the Merchant Shipping Bill.
  EARL CAWDOR: I accept what the noble Lord says, but I do venture to suggest that at this hour, at all events, we cannot enter into a debate on the Second Reading. I do not think it possible to do it. The only reasonable course to pursue under, what I venture to think, is an inconvenient arrangement for discussing an important Bill, is that, while of course we shall not debate it at this time of night, we should not suffer from that fact. I shall raise no objection to Second Reading tonight, on the distinct understanding that noble Lords will be entitled to discuss the Bill fully in Committee this afternoon.
  LORD AVEBURY: I join in the protest of the noble Lord (Earl Cawdor). This Bill is certainly one of great importance—of much greater importance than anyone who listened to my noble friend opposite (the Earl of Crewe) would have imagined, and it will have, certainly, very far-reaching consequences. I trust that if we do agree to the Second Reading being taken to-night we shall not only have the opportunity of making any remarks we wish to make when we go into Committee to-morrow, but that if we propose any Amendments we shall not be told that we are precluded from doing so, because we have agreed to the principle of the Bill. I hope that may be generally understood.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I say exactly the same as has been said by my noble friends Lord Cawdor and Lord Avebury. I admit that the circumstances are exceptional, and if they had not been exceptional I should certainly have raised the question by moving to postpone the Bill for a month. This question is far too important to be hurried through like this. As your Lordships will have seen, I have an Amendment standing on the Paper to leave out Clause 7, and to insert a clause providing that the Bill shall not apply to Scotland. I shall not enter to-night into the case for my Amendment, but will only say that it is in my opinion a very strong one. In conclusion I have only to say that I hope the next stage of the Bill will be taken at a more reasonable time.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am in an absolutely penitent frame of mind, and can assure the House that I entirely accept the stripes laid upon my back by the three noble Lords who have spoken. Of course, I am not responsible for the time at which the Bill came up from the other House, and I have already endeavoured to explain that it was really owing to accident that I was not able to take it last evening. Had I been able to do so it would at any rate have given a little more time for its consideration. I frankly admit, however, that your Lordships have reason to complain that in these last few days of the session a measure of this considerable importance should be put down for Second Reading. Of course, I entirely fall in with the course suggested by the noble Earl—
  1482
  which indeed I had intended myself to suggest—that we should not proceed with the debate to-night, but that noble Lords opposite should have an opportunity, when we go into Committee to-morrow, of saying whatever they wish upon the Bill. As a matter of fact, there is not a great amount of business before the House to-morrow, so that I hope due time may be devoted to the discussion of the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  House in Committee according to order.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed, to.
  Schedule:—
  THE EARL OF GRANARDmoved to omit from the schedule the sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Act, its inclusion being rendered unnecessary by a permanent Act having been passed this session.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the Schedule, page 3, to leave out lines 52 to 54."—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX, having been suspended), Amendment reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, this Bill seeks to give effect, as far as possible, to the recommendation of the Committee of 1903 which, under the chairmanship of Mr. Akers-Douglas, inquired into the whole question of the Board of Manufactures in Scotland. The objects of the Bill are these, put as shortly as possible to your Lordships.

  1483
  The first is to appoint a new Board to take the place of the Board of Manufactures. The Board of Manufactures, I may point out to your Lordships, is a very ancient institution in Scotland, and dates from a few years after the Union. Its duties, when it was first started, were to foster the woollen and hemp industries in Scotland, and for that purpose it was given the administration of a sum of £2,000 a year, which became payable to Scotland under the Treaty of Union, and it was part of the consideration for the imposition of certain taxes in Scotland. To these duties the care of the Fisheries was subsequently added, and for the first 100 years of the Board's existence it looked after those matters. Towards the beginning of the nineteenth century it began to look after Science, and subsequently Art, and during the latter half of the nineteenth century its duties were confined to those subjects. That is the explanation of how a body with the name of the Board of Manufactures comes to look after Art in Scotland. The next proposal is to substitute a new Board consisting of seven members for the old Board of twenty-one members, as it is considered that seven is a more workable number than twenty-one. It is right that I should mention, on this matter, that Mr. Akers-Douglas' Committee's recommendation has been slightly departed from here. The Committee recommended that the number should be fifteen, and that they should be appointed in a somewhat different manner from that proposed in the Bill. But after lengthy consideration it has been held that it is better, as I say, to make the number seven, and to leave the appointment in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, whose judgment is only fettered in the matter in one respect, and that is, that three of the members of the Board must also be members of some elected body in Scotland. This is an Amendment which was recently added in another place without a division, and, I believe, unanimously. The second of the objects of the Bill is to hand over the buildings at present in charge of the Board of Manufactures to the Commissioners of Works, thus relieving the income of the Board from the charges of the upkeep of those buildings. The third object of the Bill is to make the sum of £2,000 a year, which is payable under the Treaty of Union, a
  1484
  charge on the Consolidated Fund; and the fourth object is to give increased accommodation to the Royal Society, the National Collection of Pictures, the Royal Scottish Academy, and the School of Art. If your Lordships wished, I could describe how those matters are to be effected, but I think perhaps it will be simpler, at this late hour, if I simply move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: It might perhaps relieve the pressure of business at a subsequent date, as there seems no objection to this Bill, if I were to ask permission to take it through all its stages to-night.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think it is quite sufficient to take the Second Reading to-night. I do not anticipate any Amendments to the Bill, but I personally have only been able to read it since I came to the House this evening. I do not think there is any serious question likely to arise, but I should like to ask whether the appointment should be made by the Secretary for Scotland or by recommendation to-the Crown. It is not necessary to answer the question now, but it would, I think, be better to put the Bill down for Committee to-morrow, and then, if necessary, it can be taken through the other stages.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend Lord Hamilton will certainly fall in with that suggestion.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of the reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on their Amendments; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the reason.
  House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock a.m. till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.