Sitting of 21 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve 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 continued 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.

PETITIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Godalming, for extention to women; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PAWNBROKERS' RETURN (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year ended 31st December, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Copy presented, of First Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water Board for the year ending 31st March, 1904, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 399.]

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table:—
  List of the Bills, Reports, Estimates, and Accounts and Papers printed by order of the House, and of Papers presented by command, Session 1906, with a General Alphabetical Index thereto, 28th Parliament, First Session, 6th Edward VII., 13th February, 1906, to 21st December, 1906; to be printed. [No. 400.]

  ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the production and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages

  1857
  (Wine, Beer and Spirits) in the British Empire and the principal Foreign Countries; and the Revenue derived there from in recent years as far as the particulars can be stated (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 345, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Kearley).
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 401.]

QUESTION'S AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Devonport Education Authority and Keyham Roman Catholic School.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the local education authority of Devonport are still refusing to maintain the Keyham Roman Catholic school, in spite of their having been informed in June, 1905, and again in August, 1906, by the Board of Education that it was their duty to do so; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am aware of the facts of the case. It is receiving the most careful attention of the Board, but I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

  Religious Census of Pupils of Elementary Schools.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he can inform the House how many pupils were in the public elementary schools of England on 1st January, 1906, whose parents were classified as belonging to the Church of England, how many to Nonconformist Protestant beliefs, how many to the Church of Rome, to the Hebrew faith, and how many to any other denomination.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A religious census does not exist in this country, nor has any system been inaugurated requiring parents to state to what church or denomination they belong when sending their children to public elementary schools. I have, therefore, no information upon the point asked in the Question.

  Fees at St. George's Commercial School, Ramsgate.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the fees charged at St. George's Commercial School, Ramsgate, in Standards IV. and upwards are 1s. per week; and, if so, whether such fees have been sanctioned by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The only official information possessed by the Board of Education, sent them on the official forms by the managers and by the local education authority, states that the highest fee charged in the school in question is 9d. a week. Letters were recently received at my Department alleging that certain parents of children in one department of the school were being called upon to pay a fee of 1s. in certain standards. Inquiries were at once instituted into this, and we are awaiting information from the local education authority.

  Master and Servant—Unfair Contracts.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the remark made by Mr. Justice Neville, in the Chancery Divisional Court, on the 6th instant, in the case of Henry Leetham & Son, Limited, v. Johnstone-White, when, in deciding in favour of the plaintiff firm, and granting an injunction restraining the defendant (a commercial traveller) from entering the employment of any firm carrying on a similar business (corn factors) in any part of the United Kingdom for a period of five years, his Lordship remarked on the exceeding pressure placed on the working commercial population by the existing state of the law bearing upon such contracts of service whereby the interests, of employers alone were considered; and whether, in view of the fact that such contracts are against public policy, their enforcement in all probability entailing upon the defendant in this and similar cases loss of employment, the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Neville will be duly considered with the view of preventing their enforcement by injunction or otherwise.
  (Answered, by Sir John Walton.) I I do not consider the law is at fault. The difficulty arises from the spirit in

  1859
  which it is applied. If the contracts referred to are unduly oppressive and in restraint of trade, and for these reasons opposed to public policy, the Court may and should refuse to enforce them.

  Construction of a Railway from Westport to Lanesborough.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the Westport Board of Guardians, in which they ask for the construction of a light railway from Westport to Lanesborough so as to supply a much needed requirement, and give employment to the labourers who are in distress owing to the failure of the crops; and will he take into consideration the advisability of making this railway.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to in the Question. No information has reached me tending to show that relief works are needed in that district, and I fear that it would not be feasible to start railway works in this locality in time to give employment to labourers during the spring and summer. The merits of this project, which does not appear to have been brought before the Government on any former occasion, have not, so far as I know, been heretofore considered; but I believe that there are other districts in which the need of improved railway facilities is more urgently felt.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Application of Mr. P. Foley.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have referred to their inspector for Cork County the application of Mr. Patrick Foley, of Fermoy, for reinstatement as the successor to his father in the holding on the estate of Mr. Maxwell Lowe, Watergrasshill; and, should his reinstatement be found to be difficult or impossible, whether the Commissioners would take into consideration his claim for an allotment of untenanted land.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates commissioners inform me that no applica-
  1860
  tion for reinstatement has yet been received from Patrick Foley. An application has been received from Thomas Foley, and it has, with others of a similar nature, been referred to an assistant inspector for inquiry and report, but the report has not yet been received in his case.

  Re-sale of the Winn Estate, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Winn estate at Glenbeigh, county Kerry, has been vested in the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, when will the necessary improvements be undertaken, with a view to a re-sale to the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board inform me that the Winn estate has not yet been vested in them, and that no alteration in the holdings can as yet be made.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, National Galleries of Scotland Bill, Falkirk and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to Amendments to Land Tenure Bill, now Agricultural Holdings Bill, and to the Consequential Amendments made to the Bill, without Amendment; and do not insist on their Amendments to which this House has disagreed.
  That they do not insist on their Amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Bill, to which this House has disagreed.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to Public Trustee Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Cost of the Macedonian Reform Scheme.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will endeavour to obtain from the British financial adviser on the Reform Commission in Macedonia, before the next Session of Parliament, the information promised by him; and whether he will also request

  1861
  the British adviser to endeavour to furnish an estimate of any additional cost to which the Turkish Government may have been put by the reform scheme of the Powers in Macedonia.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Runciman, Dewsbury; for Sir Edward Grey): As regards the first part of this Question, in which I presume the hon. Member refers to the information asked for in his Question of the 29th ult., the amount due by the Turkish Government in March last was £T94,000. The monthly subventions due from the Turkish Government on account of the deficit amount to £T68,546. Therefore the total amount due up to the middle of November last was £T616,914. The subventions actually paid by the Turkish Government up to that time were as follows:—In March, £T160,000; July, £T60,394; August, £T80,000; September, £T50,000; October, £T25,000; November, £T40,000—making a total of £T415,394. These sums were derived from the proceeds of loans. As regards the second part of the Question, it is not possible to furnish a comparative statement, as no trustworthy details in regard to the civil expenditure of the three vilayets are available prior to the establishment of the Financial Commission.
  MR. REESasked if, in view of the very strong feelings entertained by certain hon. Members on this subject, the Secretary of State would be willing to receive them during the Recess and to listen to any representations they might have to make.
  MR. RUNCIMANreplied that, of course, he could not pledge his right hon. friend, but he was sure he would consider any communication sent to him.

  Menston Asylum, Leeds.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the action of the attendants at the Menston Asylum, Leeds, in their treatment of the inmates; and whether, in view of the local opinion upon the matter, and as an act of fairness to the Officials, a public inquiry will be granted.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I have received some communications on this subject and am now making inquiries into the matter. At present I have no information upon which I could answer the last part of the Question.

  Leeds Sorting Staff—Hours of Duty.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the sorting office staff at Leeds are compelled to work very often twenty hours a week overtime; whether, in view of the amount of overtime, he will consider the advisability of making new appointments, in view of the fact that some of the learners in the post office named have over three years unappointed service; and whether he is aware that when appointments are delayed that increments are also delayed, which, in the case of young men, means a loss in some cases of 4s. per week for twenty years.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I will have inquiry made in the matter, and will inform the hon. Member of the result. I may say, however, that provisional authority has been given for additional staff.

  The House of Lords.
  MR. J. H. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the rejection or amendment by the other House of the Education Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and the Land Tenure Bill, he will take into consideration during the recess the desirability of proposing early next session a new Standing Order empowering the House, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, to pass through all its stages in the one sitting any Bill which has failed to pass into Law by reason of the action of the other House, and thus prevent the other House from nullifying the result of the prolonged labour of this House. In putting the Question the hon. Member said a word had been seriously altered by the authorities at the Table. He had written "in view of the rejection or 'mutilation' by the other House of" the Bills referred

  1863
  to. He would ask the Prime Minister to take the word "amendment" in a strictly ironical sense.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The form of the Question was altered by my direction. I did not think that in the form in which it was given it was respectful to the other House.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTdesired to call attention to an error in including the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill in the Question. In its amended form that Bill was agreeable to all Irish Members.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:
  MR. P. BARLOW: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the rejection or amendment by the other House of the Education Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and the Land Tenure Bill, he will take into consideration during the recess the desirability of proposing early next session a new Standing Order empowering the House, on the Motion of a Prime Minister of the Crown, to pass through all its stages in one sitting any Bill which has failed to pass into Law by reason of the action of the other House, and thus prevent the other House from nullifying the result of the prolonged labour of this House.
  MR. MYER: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the rejection or amendment by the other House of the Education Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and the Land Tenure Bill, he will take into consideration during the recess the desirability of proposing early next session a new Standing Order, empowering the House, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, to pass through all its stages in one sitting any Bill which has failed to pass into Law by reason of the action of the other House, and thus prevent the other House from nullifying the result of the prolonged labour of this House.
  MR. RAPHAEL: To ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the rejection or amendment by the other House of the Education Bill, the
  1864
  Plural Voting Bill, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and the Land Tenure Bill, he will take into consideration during the recess the desirability of proposing early next session a new Standing Order empowering the House, on the motion of a Minister of the Crown, to pass through all its stages in one sitting any Bill which has failed to pass into Law by reason of the action of the other House, and thus prevent the other House from nullifying the result of the prolonged labour of this House.
  MR. RAINY: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the rejection or amendment by the other House of the Education Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and the Land Tenure Bill, he will during the recess take into consideration the desirability of proposing early next session a new Standing Order empowering the House, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, to pass through all its stages in one sitting any Bill which has failed to pass into Law by reason of the action of the other House, which has had the effect of nullifying the result of the prolonged labour of this House.
  MR. LEHMANN: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the rejection or amendment by the other House of the Education Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and the Land Tenure Bill, he will take into consideration during the recess the desirability of proposing early next session a new Standing Order empowering the House, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, to pass through all its stages in one sitting any Bill which has failed to pass into Law by reason of the action of the other House, and thus prevent the other House from nullifying the result of the prolonged labour of this House.
  MR. RAPHAEL: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the treatment by the House of Lords of Bills passed by this House by large majorities, he will consider the desirability of introducing, at an early period, a measure limiting the veto of the House of Lords in the case of measures which have passed twice through this House.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): Perhaps I may be allowed to do what I think is quite unexampled in answering Questions—to reply to seven Questions put to me in similar terms. I do not think so large a catch of fish has ever fallen to one net. My hon. friends cannot expect a definite reply at the present moment, but, of course, the Questions they raise will receive the most serious attention o the Government.
  MR. RAPHAELasked whether his second Question was included in the right hon. Gentleman's Answer. It seemed to be somewhat different from the others.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, certainly it is different, but it requires the same Answer.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
Order read for the Consideration of the Lords Amendments.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.)in moving that the Lords Amendments be now considered, said it would be convenient to state the nature of the Amendments and the course the Government thought it necessary to take. There were two Amendments, and their effect was to exclude Scotland from the provisions of the Bill. He reminded the House of the position. A Bill for Scotland in exactly the same terms as the English Bill passed its Second Reading unanimously, and the two Bills were referred to one Committee. That Committee, finding the two Bills proceeded on the same lines, recommended their amalgamation, and in the present Bill as sent to another place the powers were extended to Scotland. The striking out of this extension appeared to him an extremely harsh course for the House of Lords to take. He could hardly describe it as less than a wanton blow at the rights of the representatives of Scotland. Five-sixths of the Scottish Members were at the back of the Government, and they had with practical unanimity agreed to the recommendation of the Select Committee that Scotland should be included in the Bill.
1866
The Bill had been subjected to prolonged examination both in that House and in the House of Lords, and no hole had been picked in its framework. There was no evidence that opinion in Scotland was against the Bill. Such expression of opinion as there had been in Scotland was in reference to the Bill before it went up to the Select Committee. In Committee the Bill had been made a businesslike measure, and there had since been no hostile expression of public opinion in Scotland. On the contrary, they had evidence that opinion in Scotland had changed and was taking a favourable view of the Bill. It was a permissive Bill; it was designed to meet emergencies, and it encouraged voluntary effort. In these circumstances it was an extraordinary thing that the clause applying the Bill to Scotland should have been struck out. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities was the only Scottish Member who had taken the slightest objection to the Bill. They did all they could to educate the hon. Member, but they failed: he remained incorrigible to the end. They protested against the treatment to which Scotland had been subjected by the Lords in this matter. Hon. Members from Scotland would know how to put this matter right next session. But they had to consider the position of the Bill now. It was absolutely necessary that the Bill, which was badly wanted in England and Wales, should be passed into law. Its structure so far as England and Wales were concerned, had not been touched. Therefore great responsibility rested on them in considering whether they had the right to risk the whole measure. They felt it would not be right to take that risk, and therefore he felt himself driven to move "that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."—(Mr. Lough.)
MR. BARNESsaid that as a Scottish Member, and moreover as a Scottish Labour Member representing a large industrial constituency also as one whose privilege it was to introduce a small Bill dealing

1867
with Scotland upon the same subject, which eventually became the clause under discussion, he ventured to associate himself with the protest which had been made by the Secretary to the Board of Education. He also wished to go one step further and express the hope that even now at the eleventh hour the House might find some way of remitting the Bill to the House of Lords in order to secure the re-insertion of the clause. The Bill he had introduced upon the matter went through the Commons unopposed, and he was glad to say that after that he had the unanimous support of the Scotish Liberal Members. He did not know what the number of them was, but he believed it was practically all of them, with the exception of the representative of the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities. He failed to understand the reason why those in another place had struck out the clause. From what he could gather, in the first place, the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities in his speech on a previous occasion laid great stress on the statutory conditions of Scotland as being different from those in England. He did not know much about the statutory conditions of Scotland, but in his opinion those conditions ought to be subordinate to the common claims of humanity. The hon. Member on that occasion had devoted much time to showing that Scotland had no need for the Bill and did not want it. He (Mr. Barnes) ventured to claim to represent the the Scottish opinion of those directly concerned with the Bill a good deal better than the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities. The chief thing about the matter was the depth of Scotland's poverty. He spoke upon this subject with knowledge and observation, and he knew there was as great need for the Bill in Scotland as in any other part of the British Isles. Nor did he trust even to his own observation in the matter. The Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland in its Report stated that—
"It was evident that among the causes which told against the physical welfare of the population, the lack of proper nourishment was most prevalent. Many important witnesses were of opinion that it was most desirable that increased attention should be given to the feeding of children in State-aided schools. We entirely agree."
1868
Again, the Dundee Social Union had said that the health of a large number of children was impaired and development retarded by inefficient nourishment. Such expressions as these were convincing as to the need for the Bill in Scotland. It was quite true there had not been such a voluminous demand for the measure on the part of the Scottish education authorities as one might wish, but he had had the honour of presenting to the House a strongly-worded minority report from the Glasgow School Board, in which it was urged that the Bill should be applied to Glasgow. Then again they had had some evidenceas to the demand for the Bill from the trade unions of Scotland, and these organisations certainly had some claims to speak for the people on the matter. On two occasions the trade unions had asked that the Bill should apply to Scotland. Apart from all this, however, he did not think they need go beyond the fact that five-sixths of the representatives of Scotland in this House were in favour of the measure. Even assuming that there was something in the argument that there was no demand for the Bill in Scotland and that that country did not want it, all that he and his friends asked was that in the event of any one authority in Scotland expressing a desire for it, neither the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities nor the House of Lords should stand in the way.
MR. EUGENE WASONdrew the attention of the House to the proceedings in Committee upon the Bill. They sat, he said, from mid-day till after three o'clock in the morning in order to get the Bill through. On 13th December it came on for Report, and the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities moved the rejection of Clause 7. The Speaker, however, who was in the Chair, thought the motion a frivolous one, and ordered hon. Members in support of the omission to stand up Thirteen only stood up, and eleven had their names taken down. Of that eleven there was not one Scottish Member, with the excepttion of the Member for one of the Scottish Universities. Notwithstanding the protests of Scottish Members they were not

1869
to get the benefit of this Bill. But there was one hon. Member who would be pleased, and to him they tendered their congratulations. When they went down to their constituents after Christmas they would be able to tell their the way in which Scottish Liberal opinion in this House was repealed at the bidding of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he associated himself very fully with the protest made against the action of the House o Lords, but his main purpose in rising was to put before the House one very important aspect of the situation in which they found themselves. This Bill was in the first instance a private Member's Bill, and they were all aware of the difficulty there was in getting any private Member's Bill carried through the House. In this particular instance it was only because the Government had assumed responsibility that the Bill was able to pass. But, he asked, what, supposing they consented to the Government's suggestion, would be the position next session, and what guarantee was there that the Government would assist in passing a measure applying the provisions of the Act to Scotland? Repeated protests had been made this session that the Government had dared to take the responsibility for measures introduced by private Members. If they were going to be placed in that difficulty and exposed to the uncertainty as to whether the Government next session would help a private Member's Bill, dealing with this question, would the Prime Minister promise that he would grant such facilities; or, better still, would he promise that the Government themselves would bring in a small measure which should apply the benefits of this Bill to Scotland? If a promise to this effect were given he thought they could all agree to the position the Secretary to the Board of Education had taken up to-day, though of course they must all protest against the action of the Lords.
DR. MACNAMARAthought a great mistake had been made in striking Scotland out of the Bill.
1870
It was a permissive Bill, and if Scotland did not want it Scotland need not have it. But he joined issue at once with the statement that substantially there was no need for this measure in Scotland. He knew from personal experience that in the great town schools of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee, there was grave need for a Bill of this sort. The late Miss Stevenson, when on the Edinburgh School Board, told him there were a great many children in a half-starved and neglected condition attending the schools. And, when he thought of the full-blooded complacency with which Lord Balfour of Burleigh said this Bill was not needed for Scotland, he could not help thinking of the old Scottish proverb "When the guid man's full, naebody else is empty." If the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities examined the petitions he would see there was no petition against the Bill on the merits of the case, but the petitioning bodies thought some other authority ought to be charged with the work. He was sure, however, that finding themselves where they did the Motion made by the Parliamentary Secretary was the only one possible. He ventured to think that the Prime Minister would out of the goodness of his heart respond to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, that something should be done to give facilities to a private Member's Bill next year. He did not like giving way to the Lords in this or anything else; but he understood it was either that or losing the Bill. This Bill had been before the country for ten years, and it was about time they got to work. It was a comfort to feel that amid all their hopes of effecting something for educational reform this year, at any rate they had succeeded in putting one small Bill on the Statute book in the interests of little hungry children.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had really nothing to add to what had been said by his hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who had conducted the later stages of the Billthrough the House with a tact, a skill, and a courage which, he thought, were admired by them all. He, like his hon. friend, wanted to save the Bill. It was a question of life and death now. It was too late to

1871
send it back to the other place, where the Bill had not many friends. If it had been a Bill referring perhaps, to other classes of the community, and dealing, perhaps, with other matters, it might, even at this last moment, have had a chance, but he was afraid that this Bill would have no chance. Therefore, to save the Bill for England, they must bow the head to the conclusion that had been come to elsewhere as to Scotland. The idea that the Scottish people objected to this Bill was all moonshine. It was parliamentary moonshine, at all events. When they had the whole of the Scottish Members, with the exception of one or two at the outside, strongly in favour of the Bill, it was trespassing a little too much on their patience to be told that the Scottish people disliked the Bill. The only Scottish Member who had taken a prominent part against it was his hon. friend opposite who had only been a short time in the House, and therefore had no Parliamentary knowledge of the feelings of Scotland, and who represented two of the Universities. It was almost reducing the whole thing to an absurdity to say that they were to be compelled to submit their judgment of what was good for Scotland to such authorities as the House of Lords and his hon. friend. This was the strongest case of the inversion of authority on these Constitutional matters that they had ever seen. Stronger than the Education Bill, stronger than the Plural Voting Bill, stronger than any was this little thing. Yet he advised the House not to reject the Lords Amendment, but to treasure it in their hearts and to accept the Lords Amendment rather than sacrifice the whole Bill. He had been asked what the Government would do next next session. He could give no pledge. He had been rather searching his recollection, but he did not think he had given any pledge to anybody on anything for next session. If that were so, it was so much the better, because they would be able to have a free hand, up to the last moment, to exercise their judgment, and it would be a judgment guided by sympathy with the mass of the representatives of the three countries, of which Scotland was one. He could give no pledge, but he would say that he wished to see a similar Bill passed for Scotland, and he
1872
would ask his hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle to leave the matter there.
*SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)said he would not have risen to take part in the debate but for the words that had fallen from the Prime Minister. He was unwilling to have it supposed that he was not prepared to accept responsibility for the opinions he had expressed in this House, or that he was not prepared openly and boldly to say that he was glad of the action taken by the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman had cast up against him his lack of Parliamentary knowledge, inferring from that that he had no knowledge of Scotland. He thought he had shown by long years of work in connection with the administration of Scottish affairs that he had its interests at heart, and that he was not entirely dead to the welfare of Scottish children. Some references had been made to the course of this Bill. They were told how long it was before the House and how carefully it was considered. So far as Scotland was concerned, the Second Reading passed without a single word, and in Committee the Scottish clause was not reached until 3 o'clock on a Saturday morning, when it occupied about ten minutes. On Report, about twenty minutes were spent upon it. Then there was the Report of the Select Committee, on which, although the Members of the party opposite were dominant, the clause applying the Bill to Scotland was only carried by a single vote. Every witness from Scotland gave evidence directly against its applicability to Scotland.
DR. MACNAMARA: Mr. Hector Ferguson.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that, from conversations he had had with Mr. Hector Ferguson, he was quite sure that that gentleman's opinion was adverse to applying the Bill to Scotland. Miss Laura Stevenson was also strongly opposed to the Bill, and hon. Members knew quite well her views, because her words had been quoted to the House. He had had many conversations at different times extending over years with Miss Laura

1873
Stevenson, and from first to last her opinion was against the measure. He had been told that he entirely overlooked the opinion of Scotland as expressed by hon. Members opposite. He could only say that some of the hon. Members representing Scotland had spoken to him on this question in private in terms far different from that.
MR. EUGENE WASON: I should like to know who they are. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Name."]
SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGasked whether it was in order for the hon. Member to refer to private conversations with other hon. Members without naming them when he was relying upon their opinion as evidence in support of his case.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of order.
MR. CROOKS: Will the hon. Member tell us whether Preston is in Scotland?
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the Prime Minister had thought fit to sneer at one or two school boards which had petitioned against this Bill.
MR. AINSWORTHasked if the hon. Member was in order in referring to the Prime Minister as sneering at the school boards because he happened to differ from him?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is in order in using such language if he likes, but it is quite another question whether it is justified or not.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid it had been stated that one or two school boards in no way expressed the opinion of Scotland upon this matter. The School Boards of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Govan, and Aberdeen were against the proposal. Was there a single petition in favour of it from one school board in Scotland? He had been told that the trade unions had expressed themselves in favour of the Bill, and he was prepared to give every weight to opinions expressed by these bodies, but he was not aware that they had
1874
specially interested themselves in benevolent efforts of this kind, and they had not under their charge the administration of funds for this object, as many of the witnesses who were against this measure had. The decision of the House of Lords was backed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, whose opinion would not be lightly disregarded in Scotland. The Prime Minister had taunted him with the suggestion that his opinion was worthless because he represented the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. Yet he believed among his constituents there were more men who had felt the stress of poverty than in almost any other constituency in Scotland. His was no wealthy constituency, nor one representing privilege of power; many of his constituents sprang from the poorest classes of Scotland and were acquainted with their needs. He ventured to say that the sneering references of the Prime Minister to his constituency were uncalled for, and they would redound more to the right hon. Gentleman's discredit than to that of the Universities he represented.
*MR. LAIDLAWsaid he deeply regretted the course which the Government had taken. He felt it very difficult to speak with moderation in this week above all weeks, when the hands of the other House were reeking with the blood of the Education Bill. That they should be asked by the Government to take this further blow from the Lords was more than human nature could stand. He was in hopes, whilst, listening to the speech of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, that the Government were going to take the right course and insist upon the Bill's being applied to Scotland. The Bill was born in Scotland, owing its origin to the Report of the Commission on Physical Deterioration. The Bill was desperately needed in some of the large cities, and he would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who sat in Paradise, whether it was too late for them to go cap in hand to the Lords, and, on the knee if necessary, to make a last appeal. He maintained that the benefits of the Bill were urgently needed in some of the Scottish cities, and he complained that, although Scotland had been starved in the matter of legislation

1875
for years, they were now asked to assume that this Bill was not wanted there because nine Members of the House of Lords presumed to judge so against the opinion of seventy-one out of seventy-two Members representing Scotland in the House of Commons. He asked whether it was too late to appeal to the Lords; there were surely some reasonable men left there. He hoped the Government would at any rate allow Members to express their opinions in the Lobby without putting on the official whips. He denied that there had been no representation from Scotland in favour of the Bill. He had received representations in favour of it, and he knew a great many other Members had also. It was certainly not wanted in some quarters, but it was very much wanted in others, and those who did not want it need not have it. If the measure had been compulsory he should have hesitated about it, but as it was optional it could not do anybody any harm.
*MR. J. D. WHITEsaid he desired most earnestly to associate himself with the protest which had been made against the treatment which this Bill had received in another place. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, and in all that he had said the hon. Member had failed to deal with what he regarded as the leading fact as to public opinion in Scotland, namely, that five-sixths of the representatives of Scotland in this House had declared themselves in favour of the Bill. The measure was optional, and no local authority in Scotland need adopt its powers unless they liked. His hon. friend opposite did not mean to give the local authorities of Scotland a chance of adopting the measure. No one who knew the conditions of child-life in the large centres of Scotland would deny to them anything that might improve those conditions in any way, particularly during the course of the present winter. He protested against what had been done in another place, and also against the manner in which it had been done. The Bill had been sent to the other House a week ago, but the majority of its Members were so busily occupied in
1876
mutilating other beneficial measures that they were unable to turn their attention to this particular measure until last night, and the consequence was that it had not been sent back to this House until to-day. The view of the Government was that they must either agree to the Lords Amendments exempting Scotland, or lose the Bill for England and Wales. In the circumstances he should hardly feel justified in differing from the Government as to the course which should be taken. Amendments of this character should be received in time to give the House a reasonable opportunity of saying whether they agreed or disagreed with them. They might look upon this as the last kick the Lords had administered to the beneficial legislation of the session. It was particularly bad that it should have been administered to Scotland, because, on account of the pressure of other measures, Scotland had been the Cinderella of the session. The Prime Minister had expressed the hope that the Scottish Members would treasure this in their hearts. As one of the rank and file of the Scottish Members he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were not likely to forget it. When the time came for the right hon. Gentleman to take steps for giving effect to the will of the people as declared by their elected representatives, the Scottish Members would be among his most loyal and enthusiastic supporters.
MR. KEIR HARDIEdesired to remove what he believed to be a wrong impression that had prevailed in the course of the debate. It was not true that Scotland and the Scottish School Boards petitioned against some form of public relief being given tohungry school children. Glasgow School Board, in sending its petition, sent a covering letter asking that the powers given to the Poor Law authorities in England to provide meals for hungry children should be extended to Scotland. Therefore, there was noopposition to the principle of the measure. If the public authorities in Scotland had not petitioned in favour of the Bill, it was because they knew that the House of Commons was practically unanimous in favour of it. It did not

1877
occur to them that petitions were necessary. He regretted that the Government had not asked the House to adopt the course which he was going to suggest, namely, that the Lords Amendments should be sent back to the Upper Chamber, and that this House should wait for the return of the Bill. There was no statutory obligation to close the House of Commons at a given hour today, or even to wind up the session to-day at all. Most hon. Members present felt strongly on this point. Those who were in earnest upon it were quite prepared, at whatever inconvenience, to sit to any hour this evening, or, if necessary, to sit again to-morrow finally to dispose of the Bill. He hoped the Government would reconsider their attitude. The course he suggested did not involve any risk of the Bill's being lost. If the Lords persisted in their present attitude, he would respectfully advise the House to let Scotland go for this session rather than lose the Bill altogether. The Prime Minister had said that the Bill had few friends in the other House. That was perfectly true. Those who were present and heard the debate in the other House could not fail to be struck by the fact that the benches on which the bishops usually sat—the bishops who were so prominent recently while striving to force their sterilising creed on the minds of children—were empty on the occasion when the claims of hungry and starving children were being considered. He disputed the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities that his constituents were behind him in this matter. The doctors and the ministers of Scotland, who knew the needs of the poor, were not supporting him on this question, and, indeed, he should be sorry for the educated classes in Scotland if it could be said in regard to a humanitarian measure of this description that with their approval their representative, of all the Members of the House of Commons, was the one man to interpose his will between the children and the relief which this Bill was intended to give them. He did not want to take this rebuff from the Lords lying down. He did not wish to concede a point to them on this or any other subject. Let hon. Members give them
1878
to understand that they did not admit that there was anything in the argument against this clause which could be substantiated by anyone familiar with Scottish local requirements. The real truth was that those who had worked so hard to have Scotland taken out of the Bill were opposed to the Bill altogether. They had fought the Bill inch by inch, and line by line. He hoped the House would not tamely I accept their opposition, and that one more effort would be made to have Scotland included in the Bill.
MR. AINSWORTHsincerely hoped that Scottish Members would be satisfied with what had fallen from the Prime Minister on this subject. Surely the logical consequence of this Bill's being passed for England must be that a similar measure for Scotland would become law next year. He appealed to Scottish Members not to stand in the way of the children of England and Wales getting the benefit which was in store for them under the Bill. The arguments in favour of including Scotland in the Bill had been urged largely by hon. Members representing populous districts, but he would remind the House that there were sparsely inhabited districts in the Highlands where children had to walk four or five miles to school. The journey had sometimes to be made in stormy weather over wet roads, and it was almost essential that some food should be given to them when they got to school, and that some authority should be empowered to spend money in supplying what was required. If this Bill was allowed to go through, the Scottish Members might rest assured that they would have the assistance of the English and Welsh Members in procuring the same benefit for Scotland next year.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that the debate had turned into a general attack on the House of Lords, and with very much that had been said he sincerely sympathised. But in their treatment of this Bill he thought the House of Lords had demonstrated their absolute in-capacity to act as a Second Chamber. Any intelligent Second Chamber would Lave rejected the Bill in toto. It had

1879
been forced through the House of Commons in an all-night sitting, and its object had been grossly misrepresented to the country. It was not a measure to provide food for starving school children, but a measure to enable public authorities to establish municipal restaurants and run them at the expense of the ratepayers.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! We are not on the question of the Bill. The question is the Lords Amendment excluding Scotland from the Bill.
MR. HAROLD COX: I was only pointing out that the justification for the rejection of the Bill by the Second Chamber would have been that it had been absolutely misrepresented to the country.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question before the House.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was merely dealing with the general attack upon the House of Lords which had been made by every previous speaker, and he was explaining why they were justified in mitigating the effects of the Bill by removing Scotland from its operation. When they had a bad Bill, it was an advantage, at any rate, that its operation should be limited. He repudiated the suggestion that those opposed to the Bill were in any way desirous of leaving children to starve. Their opposition was based solely on the fact that it was better that children should be fed by their parents than by the local authorities. The essential difference between hon. Members and himself was that they wanted to make poverty pleasant, while he wanted to get rid of it altogether.
SIR W. J. COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.)said he would view with dismay persistence in any course which would Tenderthe benefits of the Bill impossible for the children of London. He deeply deplored the action of another place in eliminating Scotland from the Bill, but he appealed to hon. Members from north of the Tweed to content themselves with having made their protest against the action of the Lords—a protest with which
1880
he sympathised—and not to imperil a Bill which was urgently needed, especially in the case of necessitous children in London. He believed that the valuable experience of the working of the Bill in large and populous centres which would be obtained in England would create such a force of public opinion in favour of its application to Scotland that next year it would be absolutely impossible to oppose the passing of a similar measure, possibly modified and improved, for that country. As to the opposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, it would probably be found that pressure would be brought to bear upon him by his constituents, and especially the medical graduates whom he represented, to show that they were generally in favour of this useful piece of constructive legislation. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not a practical one at this stage of the session.
MR. RAINYthought they ought to allow England and Wales to have the benefit of this Bill. He deprecated any action being taken which would imperil its passage into law. But he must protest that when the Scottish representatives were almost unanimously in favour of the Bill's being applied to Scotland, they should be so unceremoniously treated by the House of Lords at the instance of one Scottish Member who did not represent an ordinary constituency.
MR. MORTONprotested against the way in which Scotland was treated generally, both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. He supposed it was because the Scottish Members were not thought much of either in the other House or this House.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to say so.
Mr Mr. MORTON said he trusted the Scottish Members would join together at the proper time and insist on having Scotland treated equitably whether in regard to the provision of meals for school children or any other matter.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments—
"In line 5, after the word 'England' to insert the word 'and' and leave out the words 'and Scotland;"
"To leave out Clause 7, and to insert in lieu thereof the words 'this Act shall not apply to Scotland;"
Read a second time, and agreed to.
Message to attend the Lords' Commissioners.
The House went; and the Royal Assent was given to a number of Bills (see cols. 1851–2).
And afterwards His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord High
Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Commands).
After which the Lord Chancellor said:
My Lords and Gentlemen,
By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name, and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the twelfth day of February next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday, the Twelfth day of February next.
End of the 1st Session of the 28th Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the sixth year of the Reign of His Majesty King Edward VII.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools; of parents and guardians of children attending school in Rochdale; and teachers in public elementary schools (signing); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PAWNBROKERS (IRELAND).
  Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year 1905: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, a number of Amendments have been made by the Commons in the Public Trustee Bill, an old friend of your Lordships, which received the assent of this House at an earlier period of the session. The Amendments are all of a technical kind, and they do not, I think, involve any matter of principle. I therefore move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in all their Amendments.
  Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendments."—(Lord Loreburn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments considered (according to order).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the first of your Lordships' Amendments to which the Commons disagree concerns elderly workmen. It is—
  "In page 19, line 9, after 'shillings' to insert the words: (c)in the case of a workman who has in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State obtained from a certifying surgeon a certificate to the effect that on account of old age or the loss of an eye, or a limb, or of any other serious physical infirmity or in capacity specified in the regulations, he is specially liable to serious accident if employed in any employment of any class specified in the certificate, and who has entered into an agreement in writing with his employer as to the maximum amount of compensation to be payable to him under this Act, the compensation if payable in respect of an accident happening to the workman whilst employed in an employment of any such class shall not exceed that maximum, but the maximum shall not be less—

  (i) where death results from the injury and the workman leaves any dependants, than fifty pounds;

  (ii) Where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury, than a weekly payment during the incapacity, of ten shillings and

  The Commons disagree to this Amendment because they consider that the same scales of compensation should be applicable to all workmen without distinction. I had an opportunity during the Committee stage of explaining to your Lordships what was the position with regard to this. Perhaps I might very briefly remind your Lordships that this was a question which was left quite an open one in another place. On that occasion some members of the Cabinet were found voting in favour and some against. Your Lordships decided to insert the Amendment. In this House His Majesty's Government stated that they wished to do exactly as they did in the other House, namely, leave it an open question. We did not divide upon it, and the Amendment was therefore made without actually testing the opinion of your Lordships by a division. The reason given by the Commons for disagreeing with the Amendment is one in regard to which those Members who specially represent labour take a very strong view. I understand that they have from the beginning taken a very strong line with regard to the inclusion in the Bill of all workmen without distinction. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will not insist on the Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, these Amendments seem to us on this side of the House to have been thoroughly reasonable ones, but I do not think anything will be gained by prolonging the discussion of this matter. We do not think them of sufficient importance to justify us in further delaying the progress of the Bill. We shall, therefore, not oppose the noble Earl's Motion.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess who has just sat down that on the whole the Amendments are not of sufficient importance to imperil the measure, but I none the less very deeply regret the decision to which the other House of Parliament has come in this matter. I am sure it is not in the interest of the old men themselves, and that it will accentuate and make more general the reluctance of employers all over the country to keep on the old hands. I do not speak on this occasion from the point of view of an employer of labour, though, as your Lordships know, I am a director of a railway company and interested in other undertakings of the kind. For two or three years I have been greatly interested in the management of the Scottish Corporation, which deals with the case of aged Scotsmen who have been for years employed in London; and it has been our continuing experience for the last few years that our old fellow countrymen are being excluded from employment partly on the ground of the danger of claims being made under the compensation law. In times of depression men who are advanced in life are the first to be discharged, and when these men are once discharged it is getting increasingly difficult to find new places for them. It is past our power to insist on this Amendment, but I hope your Lordships will not be blind to the fact that the provision in the Bill as it stands will make it more and more difficult to get these men retained in their employment or to secure for them new places when through no fault of their own they are discharged.
  LORD STALBRIDGE: My Lords, I deeply regret the action of the House of Commons in refusing this Amendment, which was inserted almost unanimously by the House of Lords. I believe the only opponent here was the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and I am quite certain that in a few minutes' conversation with him I could convince him that the Lords were right on this point. I bow submissively to the action of our Leader on this side when he expresses the opinion that we should not insist upon our Amendment, so as not to endanger the passing of the Bill. It may be said that I speak as a large employer of labour. That is quite true; but those who will be hit hardest are the aged men employed by smaller manufacturers. We have always done everything in our power to find places for those who were incapacitated by accident, old age, or infirmity, and it is possible for us sometimes to do it. I need hardly say that we shall not go back on that; but it must always have a deterrent effect to have large sums hanging over one's head for men who are more liable to accident for the reasons stated. It is, however, on the employees of smaller manufacturers that the refusal of this Amendment will fall most heavily; and it is in the interests of the men themselves much more than of the masters that I regret that the House of Commons have taken this view on the subject.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I greatly regret that the Government on this occasion have taken the line of asking your Lordships not to insist on your Amendment. Here is a contract which in itself is perfectly innocent, perfectly natural, and which constitutes one of the safeguards which old men have. By asking your Lordships to strike out this Amendment the Government are signing the death warrant of a great many of these old men. I hope it will be understood in the country generally to whose action it is due that so many of these men will be thrown out of employment. We know perfectly well from whom this proceeds. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill told us that it proceeds from the Labour Party in the other House. The Labour Party presumably

  1825
  fear that if the Amendment were inserted it would have some prejudicial effect upon wages. It must be some reason of that sort which has actuated them. Unfortunately this Government are particularly amenable to the influence of the Labour Party. On the previous occasion the Government were divided, but apparently when this Amendment was sent down to the House of Commons the Government made up their minds to throw in their fate with the Labour Party. If ever there was an innocent contract, one that was right, just, wise, and expedient, it is this contract. I do not think any of the noble Lords opposite really believe that such a contract ought to be forbidden. Under His Majesty's Government this country is becoming very much like a foreign railway station—everything is forbidden; and if they will forbid a contract of this sort, then it seems to me there is no contract which may not be forbidden. I regret very much the decision at which His Majesty's Government have arrived.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the second Amendment inserted by your Lordships to which the Commons disagree is a much less important one—
  "In page 22, line 3, to leave out the words; "both parties" and insert the words "either party," and to leave out the word "applicant" and insert the word "applicants."
  The Commons disagree to this Amendment because they consider that it is in-expedient that one party without the consent of the other party should have the power of constituting the medical referee sole arbitrator as respects any matter, in the place of the court of arbitration prescribed by the Bill. We have already discussed the point and divided upon it in Committee. I will therefore not say any more in the circumstances, but will move that this House do not insist on their Amendment.
  Moved, "That the House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LAND TENURE BILL, NOW AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  Order of the Day, for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, and the reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments, read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, before I move that the House proceed with the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and their reasons for disagreement I would ask the indulgence of the House for one or two minutes on a personal matter. I hope I may be permitted to express to your Lordships my thanks for the consideration, patience, and courtesy which have been shown to me throughout the negotiations connected with this Bill. I acknowledge that the House considered this Bill, as originally introduced, distasteful. I also acknowledge that it created some alarm among a small minority of your Lordships' House, who regarded it as dangerous and revolutionary. In thanking your Lordships for the way in which you have treated me I hope I may say that I have tried to play my part with my cards on the table, and if I have said anything in anyway to irritate or annoy, I beg your Lordships to believe that it was done by accident and not by design.
  I hope I may also claim that my colleague who had charge of the Bill in another place has tried to do his duty in the same way. That he succeeded is shown by the fact that when the Bill was read a Third Time in the House of Commons no division of any sort was claimed. The Bill then came up to your Lordships' House, and you were good enough to give it a Second Reading without a Division. It was generously acknowledged by noble Lords opposite that every effort had been made in the other House to meet legitimate criticism, and in Committee in this House the only clause proposed to be left out was the absolutely new proposal providing for compensation for disturbance. A Motion was made to omit that clause, but only eighteen members of your Lordships' House voted for its omission; so that I think I may fairly claim that there has been in this House a recognition

  1827
  of the principle of the Bill, and also, what is very important, of the main clauses of the Bill.
  I will now briefly narrate what happened in the other House last night. A Motion was made—perhaps it was not unexpected—in one quarter to reject your Lordships' Amendments en bloc. But that Motion was not entertained by the House, and at the Government's desire the House of Commons at once settled down to consider your Lordships' Amendments seriatim and to see what could be fairly and legitimately accepted The Government indicated, and the indication is on this Paper, what Amendments they could not accept. I will read to your Lordships what Mr. Long, the acting Leader of the Opposition, said:—
  "The Opposition had no desire, at this stage of the session, to contest the course which the Government proposed to take in regard to the Lords' Amendments. For himself, he still held the opinion, which he had expressed on the Third Reading, that the Bill was a fair and reasonable compromise between those who represented the various interests in land, and that as it left the House of Commons there was nothing in it of which any reasonable person need be afraid. He thought the course that was proposed by His Majesty's Government was fair, and one that need not meet with persistent opposition.'
  There was one Amendment postponing the date of the coming into force of this Bill till 1909. I gave a distinct pledge in this House that I thought that was fair. I was very much impressed with Lord St. Aldwyn's arguments on that point, and I gave a direct pledge to the House that that should be the date for its coming into force if it pleased your Lordships to pass the Bill. It is an open secret that that pledge of mine was not at all acceptable to my Radical supporters in another place. They kicked violently at the proposal, but they recognised that an Englishman's word is his bond. I have said that, having given the pledge, nothing on earth would induce me to go back upon it. They fully accepted it, and I am very grateful to them for having supported me. But they do look upon it as a very great concession, and I quite acknowledge that it is. I am very grateful to them for that concession, and I hope your Lordships will accept the two or three Amendments on the Paper as a sort of return for that concession. I
  1828
  beg to move that the House do now consider the Commons Amendments and reasons.
  Moved, "That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and the reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Earl that the other House went through our Amendments and that nothing can be legitimately complained of as a matter of form, but this House has not got so much in detail as it ought to have done. I say that more particularly with reference to that part of the Bill in which I am personally interested—namely, those clauses which I think are unfair to our Scottish system. The noble Earl talked about the language that had been used in regard to this Bill, and he said it had been described as dangerous and revolutionary. I have never used that language about it. If I had thought that, I should have moved to reject it on Second Reading. What I have said about it is that I think it is unfair, and, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, I regard it in its application to Scotland as quite exceptionally stupid.
  The noble Earl has made a great point of the concession of the date 1909. So far as Scotland is concerned it is not of the slightest value; it does not touch the question of leases. It is, I believe, of use to those whose land is let in yearly tenancies, and I am very glad that they should have it. When the noble Lord talks about his word being his bond I must remind him that this was a concession accepted by him and promised to the House. If I understand the proceedings in another place rightly, the noble Earl is accurate in saying that his Radical followers, of whom he seems to stand in considerable awe, only accepted that concession on condition that the noble Earl succeeded in inducing this House to give up three or four things to which they attach considerable value. The acceptance of a proposal in this House by a Cabinet Minister ought to be a pledge by itself, and ought not afterwards to be bartered away in exchange

  1829
  for three or four things which we are asked to swallow but which we very much dislike. I put that point in all seriousness, and I think it is a perfectly fair one.
  The issue before us is practically whether we will accept all that the House of Commons have done or run the risk of losing the Bill. That is really the issue. There are two or three things in the Bill as it now comes back to us of which I most seriously complain. It applies conditions quite unnecessarily, as I think, to existing contracts. The noble Earl has said that the great majority of tenant farmers are in favour of the Bill. I will not profess to speak for England, but I can assure him, from my knowledge of Scotland, that in Scotland, at any rate, there are not 10 per cent. of the farmers who care twopence for the Bill, and that those who do care about it and know about it are rather inclined to be actively hostile to it in its present form. The application of this measure to existing contracts is, in my opinion, utterly immoral and indefensible. I cannot help it, but I make that protest. I venture to say that if this Bill had been brought in for Scotland alone or with any care for the interests of Scotland, such a clause as that would never have found the slightest acceptance by any practical man. I wish to point out the utter folly of dealing with England and Scotland, their customs being so different, in one Bill.
  The proceedings of last night intensify my feeling that we agriculturists in Scotland have been treated in this matter with needless carelessness and almost with injustice. This is due to the Government's taking up private Bills for the inception of which they are not responsible, and which were never intended to apply to Scotland. The situation in the present case has arisen on account of the absolute ignorance of the President of the Board of Agriculture of our Scottish conditions and the supineness of the Scottish Members of the Cabinet. I take some blame to myself, but I was misled by the speech of the noble Earl in Edinburgh on October 10th. I knew all the time—every one of us must have known—that this Bill was utterly unsuited to Scotland as it then stood. That fact was brought to the knowledge
  1830
  of the noble Earl when he was in Edinburgh in October. He acknowledged it and in distinct terms promised us a Scottish application clause. Here are his words—
  "I would also remind you that the Solicitor General for Scotland, who has given me valued assistance, expresses the opinion that it would not be difficult to adapt the Bill to Scottish procedure, and that this could readily be done by means of an application clause which might be added to the Bill.
  I venture to say that a fair interpretation of that speech is that the noble Earl had been convinced by his visit to Scotland and to Scottish tenant farmers that this Bill as it stood was not suitable to Scottish procedure, and that he intended when he returned to London to see whether he could not, before the Bill came up to this House, apply it to Scotland in such a way as to do us less damage.
  There are points of difference, as everybody knows, both in procedure andmatters of law and in matters of custom, which it is of the utmost importance should be preserved according to the wishes and desires of the two countries respectively. I would have preferred a Scottish Bill altogether, but if the Government, after adopting this Bill, had applied their minds in good time to drafting a Scottish application clause the whole thing could have been got through with much less difficulty. At the last moment there was placed upon your specially wards withdrawn, and was subsequently taken up by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. The application of the ground game provisions to Scotland is felt to be a grievance by many tenant farmers. I think if it had been limited to some of the larger holdings, the hill holdings and so on, there would have been a case for it. I thought it was too much to ask this House to put in a limited Scottish application clause of that kind when we were being so much injured by the other clauses not specially applying to Scotland, and on that ground I opposed it.
  I would contrast the position in which we are placed with that of our friends from Ireland. The Town Tenants Bill was an Irish Bill; it was discussed

  1831
  according to Irish circumstances and amended to suit Irish circumstances, with the result that it has become law. I think that, on the whole, a fair compromise was arrived at. But, so far as Scotland is concerned in regard to this Bill, we have hardly got one thing. With the exception of the provision which I myself moved relating to arable and pasture land, the Bill will do nothing but harm to Scottish custom and procedure. I am glad to think that agricultural associations are being rapidly formed in Scotland. These associations embrace both landlords and tenants. I hope they will live and thrive and prosper, and that through their instrumentality pressure will be brought to bear on Parliament in the near future to amend the worse points of the Bill as applying to Scotland. Believing that, I am not desirous of contesting any of the Amendments which have come up from another place. I think the way in which we have been treated in this matter ought to be a lesson to us and to Governments not to attempt to deal with the two countries, in matters in which their custom and practice are so diverse, within the scope of one Bill.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, as my noble friend behind me cannot speak again on this question, and as my noble friend who has just sat down seems to be inclined to impugn the good faith of my noble friend, I feel bound to say that I cannot agree with that view. Generally it is undoubtedly correct that a Government which accepts Amendments in this House should adhere to those Amendments, but if the other House rejects the Amendments, and if the Bill is likely to be lost, it is only reasonably good management—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did the Government support these Amendments in another place?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I was not present when they were dealt with, and I have been a good deal engaged lately and have not had time to read the discussion on the subject. Whatever may have happened in this respect, I think that the Government are perfectly right in not asking your Lordships
  1832
  to insist upon Amendments insistence upon which would lead to the rejection of the Bill altogether. If the rule referred to were pushed to its most extreme application it would prevent the Government from ever accepting any Amendments in this House. If the principle is pressed to the extent my noble friend has pressed it I shall be greatly disinclined to recommend my noble friends who may be in charge of Bills in this House ever to accept any Amendment which your Lordships may submit.
  I will not follow my noble friend in his main observations, because, if he will forgive me for saying so, I think he wandered beyond the real subject of discussion. The Motion we are discussing is that the Commons Amendments be considered, and anything beyond the consideration of those Amendments lies outside the matter with which the House is at present engaged. But there is one point upon which I should like to say a word. My noble friend on this occasion and on former occasions has alluded to certain Amendments which were put down on the paper by Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, afterwards withdrawn, and subsequently taken up by my noble friend behind me I am the guilty person in that case. I am, I confess, a bit of a martinet about the proceedings of members of the Government, and I thought, and I think still, that it is not a correct proceeding that any member of the Government except the member in charge of the Bill should put down Amendments upon a Government Bill. Therefore I counselled Lord Hamilton to withdraw those Amendments from the Paper. There was nothing in the least mysterious about that; there was nothing in it which implied any sinister intention on the part of the Government one way or the other.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords. I hesitate very much to call in question any dictum of the noble Marquess who has just sat down as to what is and what is not orderly in debate, but I must protest against any attempt to limit the scope of this discussion to the question of considering not one or other of the Commons Amendments but whether we should consider them at all, which is now the question before the House. On the

  1833
  question whether or not we should consider the Commons Amendments I conceive that we have a perfect right to consider whether the character of the Bill generally is one which makes it worth while to accept those Amendments.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I did not contest that. All I said was that you should consider the Commons Amendments and not other parts of the Bill. Noble Lords should confine themselves to the points within those Amendments.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I venture to think that the character of the Bill generally enters into the question whether the Commons Amendments are worth considering or not. I do not, however, wish to contest further the dictum of the noble Marquess. But I must call attention to the remarkable statement which the noble Earl made at the opening of his remarks. What a wonderful Government we have! The strongest Government of modern times; it came in with a majority in the House of Commons absolutely unprecedented. Yet we have the Minister for Agriculture wringing his hands over the unruly behaviour of the Labour members; and the noble Marquess the Leader of this House now tells your Lordships that it is quite impossible to control this majority even so far as to get them to back up one of their Cabinet Ministers in the pledges he has made. The pledge which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture gave us was more or less in the nature of a bargain. We tried to amend this Bill so as to make it satisfactory.
  Allow me to say this, in passing, that when the noble Earl takes credit for having prevented the House of Commons sending back this Bill as it came from their House and rejecting all our Amendments en bloc, he forgets that a considerable part, I think the majority, of those Amendments were his own. I do not mean to say that some of those Amendments were not brought forward in deference to suggestions from this side of the House, but a great many of them were necessitated in consequence of the extraordinary state in which the Bill came up to this House. I maintain that
  1834
  the Government would have stultified themselves for all time if they had allowed the Bill to become law in the state in which it left the House of Commons. Therefore I cannot, consider that the Government are entitled to much credit for having resisted a proposal to reject our Amendments en bloc.
  Let me revert to what I was saying amoment ago. The noble Earl gave us certain pledges. He said that if we would not insist upon certain Amendments, he would, on the other hand, agree to certain concessions. That was a bargain—a matter of political honour between one side of the House and the other. Then when the Bill went down to the other House negotiations took place between the noble Earl and his own supporters. Now the noble Earl comes to your Lordships and says—"We are not going to give you all that we promised. Having induced you to give up your side of the case we are going to withdraw from our part of the bargain." That is not fair play. If the Government are really going to do that, then they must come to this honest confession—that they are a miserable weak head with an unruly tail, and, therefore, they are no Government at all. If they take up that attitude then let the country clearly understand what sort of Government it has at the head of its affairs.
  I do not agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that the stupidity of this measure is confined to Scotland. I venture to say that no Bill could have been brought forward dealing with agricultural holdings which would bring so much unpopularity upon His Majesty's Mnisters as this measure will when it gets into working order. Every tenant farmer in the country will realise it presently. The Government at present do not appreciate the effect of their own measure, and, judging from yesterday's discussion in the House of Commons, there are only a few Members there who understand it. I believe that the action which we are now taking in protesting against the hurried passage of such measures as this is one which will redound to the credit of the House of Lords. I hope that noble Lords and others throughout the country will take care

  1835
  that the people of England shall understand upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility for such miserably bad legislation.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE):My Lords, I do not propose to touch upon the latter part of the noble Duke's speech dealing with the merits of the Bill as an amendment of our agricultural holdings legislation, but I do desire to say one word on the earlier part of his speech, which dealt with the character of the pledges given by my noble friend in this House and the treatment of the Bill in the House of Commons. I do not think it is possible for noble Lords opposite to maintain that my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has in any way fallen short of the pledges he has given to the House.
  LORD SALTOUN: The application to Scotland.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I will deal with that in a moment. What the Opposition appear to expect is that when a Minister gives a pledge that he will accept a particular proposal, that pledge is to be taken singly and without reference to the rest of the Bill. I can only repeat what my noble friend the Leader of the House, said that if that were so it would make it impossible for any Government who were in a minority in this House to enter into any kind of bargain at all. Placed as we are in this minority, it is perfectly obvious that all bargains must have reference to what takes place in both Houses. Perhaps I may claim to know something, from the events of the last few weeks, about bargaining, and it is perfectly evident that it is impossible for the Government, being in a minority in this House, to make a pledge on a particular clause without its being regarded in another place as forming part of an ultimate bargain effecting the whole measure.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Why?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Noble Lords opposite are in a different position from us. They never have to make these
  1836
  bargains at all. When they are in office the whole matter is for them perfectly simple. When you have a majority in both Houses the process of bargaining never takes place at all, and therefore I am inclined to think that the criticism upon our action in this matter from noble Lords opposite is, at any rate, founded on no kind of experience. They have not experienced the extreme difficulty of carrying measures through this House in the position in which we are placed owing to the permanent majority of noble Lords opposite. I repeat that if the theory of Lord Balfour, enforced by the noble Duke, were to be carried out to its full extent, the result would simply be that we should never be able to give a distinct pledge to accept any proposal which noble Lords opposite might choose to make.
  LORD SALTOUN: Will the noble Earl give me the explanation for which I asked? I refer to the application to Scotland.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I must leave that to my noble friend. I have no knowledge of Scottish customs and procedure.
  LORD SALTOUN: When I interrupted the noble Earl he said he would deal with that point in a moment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I said so inadvertently. I have no knowledge of the particular circumstances, and must leave the matter to my noble friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think there is, perhaps, some convenience in a general discussion such as that which has been going on, and I therefore propose, before the Question is put, to add one or two very short observations to those which have already been made. The whole of these Amendments are more or less inter-dependent, and it is quite impossible to discuss three or four points involved without being naturally led to the consideration of other points as well. I observed that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture took credit to his friends in the House of Commons that they did

  1837
  not reject our Amendments en bloc. As fifty-five out of seventy-one Amendments were inserted by His Majesty's Ministers themselves—to say nothing of twelve other Amendments to which they consented—I think it is straining the imagination a good deal to conceive that the whole of the Amendments should have been dealt with in that summary fashion. I readily admit that this Bill has been considerably changed for the better in its passage through the two Houses. Some people have applied to it the epithet "revolutionary." I do not know that that is the exact epithet I should have chosen. I think I should have been inclined to summarise the Parliamentary history of the Bill by saying that its origin was somewhat obscure, that its youth was erratic and tempestuous, and that its advanced age has manifested some of the characteristics of advanced age—that it is feeble and comparatively toothless.
  With regard to the Amendments before the House, I am disposed to agree with my noble friend, Lord Balfour, in thinking that it is not necessary to do more than enter a strong protest against the first three Amendments. But something more requires to be said with respect to what we have been told by the President of the Board of Agriculture, in regard to the kind of bargain to which he asks us to be parties, as to the retention in the eleventh clause of the substituted date of 1909. That Amendment was accepted by the noble Earl, and, with all the emphasis which a Minister could possibly use, he pledged himself to its retention. The Amendment was, I understand, supported by His Majesty's Government in the House of Commons and carried by them in the face of a certain amount of opposition from their supporters. Surely that is a self-contained, complete transaction. Now for the fulfilment of that pledge of the noble Earl we are asked to pay a price—the price being the abandonment of certain Amendments to which some of your Lordships attach great importance.
  I should like some further explanation of the rejection of the Amendment which provided that questions arising under Clause 4 as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause, or for
  1838
  reasons inconsistent with good estate management, should be deemed, for the purposes of the provisions of arbitration, to be a question of law. I understand that this proposal originally emanated from the Bench opposite, and that if it is omitted we shall have to fall back on the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1900, under which it is left optional to the arbitrator to state a case. The object of the Amendment was to declare that those questions which are sometimes questions of fact, some times questions of law, and at other times questions of fact and law mixed, should be deemed to be questions of law, and so to give the right to require a case to be stated, thus providing for an appeal. That is regarded as a valuable safeguard with which we are loth to part, and I would like to have some assurance from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on this question.
  I do not want to make a Second Reading speech on this occasion, but I do desire in half-a-dozen words to express my entire concurrence with what has been said by a noble friend behind him as to the unwisdom of gratuitously disturbing the relations of landlord and tenant in this country by this kind of legislation. Many of those by whom this legislation is recommended are wholly unaware of the exceptionally advantageous position which the occupiers of land in this country hold. I do not believe that in any part of the civilised world a man who is not the owner but the occupier of the land occupies it under such favourable conditions. Noble Lords opposite are no doubt sincere in their desire that we should not by a stroke of the pen create dual ownership in England. ["Hear, hear."] I am glad of that cheer. We are, then, to deal with these people as occupiers, and their position as occupiers is more advantageous than that of any other class of tenant farmers in any other part of the world. They have security of tenure. The greater part of their capital is supplied by their partner, the landlord. When times are bad he assists them in bearing the brunt and shelters them from risks from which no other persons in their position are sheltered. To my mind this interference with that state of things is an unwise one. I do not believe it is desired by the farmers of this country.

  1839
  I do not believe it will improve the relations between landlord and tenant, nor do I for an instant believe it will do anything to improve agriculture in these islands.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In reference to the point upon which the noble Marquess has asked my opinion, I may say that the object the Government have in view is only to avoid appeals on questions of fact. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there is a provision that by the direction of the County Court Judge or by the will of the arbitrator any question of law may be left in the form of a special case. But that is merely a question of law. The universal practice in arbitrations is for the arbitrator to find on facts without an appeal. Of course, if he is corrupt, or does not hear the parties, or there is something irregular in the process, the Court may interfere; but if he is honest and fair his finding on fact is always taken. Your Lordships have by your Amendment said that the questions of fact specified therein should be regarded as if they were questions of law. The only effect of striking out the sub-section will be to leave these questions of fact to the final determination of the arbitrator.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I move that your Lordships agree with an Amendment to your Amendment on Clause 1. Your Amendment was—
  "In Clause 1, page 2, line 6, after '1900' to Insert the words 'and any sum awarded by such arbitrator to be paid, shall be recoverable in manner provided by the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, for the recovery of compensation. Provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord and tenant for an outgoing or other valuation.'
  The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out from the word "compensation" to the end of the Amendment. This is done on the advice of the Solicitor-General, and I move that your Lordships agree.
  Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would remind the House that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture accepted the proviso in question and expressed the opinion that it was an improvement. I would like to ask why does he not think it an improvement now. Can he assure us that the clause will have the same effect without this proviso? Unless that is so I think the proposed Amendment is a great mistake and that it will do a great deal of harm.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The only answer I can give is that the Solicitor-General has advised the omission of these words.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Perhaps I did not make my question clear. It is this—Has the Solicitor-General given it as his opinion that without this proviso the clause does not interfere with valuations?
  EARL CARRINGTON: I believe that is so.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The next of your Lordships' Amendments which the Commons have amended is the following—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 19, to leave out the words 'intention to make a claim for compensation' and to insert the words 'the damage.'
  The Commons amend this Amendment by omitting the words, "the damage." This is also an Amendment suggested by the Solicitor-General. The provision will then read—
  "But no compensation shall be recoverable under this section unless notice in writing is given to the landlord."
  Moved, "That this House do agree to the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I move that your Lordships do not insist on your next Amendment—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'made before the commencement of this Act,"
  to which the Commons disagree because the omission of the words might enable contracting out.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should like the noble Earl to give us some further explanation. This as one of the Amendments which the noble Earl accepted as just. After the doctrine which the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has laid down, that no pledge given by any Party which is in a minority in this House is worth the paper it is written on—
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg the noble Duke's pardon. I never said anything approaching that, as he must be quite aware.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I think that is what it came to. Are we to understand that the doctrine is to be accepted that the pledges given by the President of the Board of Agriculture are not to hold good? Are the Government going to recede from that which they thought was fair both to landlord and tenant because certain Members of the House of Commons disapprove?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think it is even stronger. This was an Amendment actually moved by the President of the Board of Agriculture himself.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I do think it is a little hard when every effort is made on our side to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite that our suggestions should be thrown back in our teeth as pledges.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would point out that the Government are in a huge majority in the other
  1842
  House. The Government say they cannot help what occurs in your Lordships' House, and that they cannot help what happens in the other House where they have this huge majority. I would like to know in what possible conditions they will be able to help things.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The Commons disagree with the following proviso inserted by your Lordships—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 34, after the word 'just' to insert the words '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."
  They do so because they think that effect ought not to be given to indefinite or implied arrangements. I ask your Lordships not to insist on your Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am sorry to speak so often, but the conduct of the Government is so extraordinary in this matter that one cannot help calling attention to it. Are they going to defend the House of Commons reasons? If not, why do they support them? The Amendment we have just dealt with was objected to by the Commons because the words proposed to be omitted might enable contracting out. Now the Commons leave out words because they object to implied agreements; so that we are not to have anything definite or implied. It means, I understand, that if a farm is let at a lower rent on account of game than would otherwise be charged, that is not to be taken into consideration. When we discussed the matter we took it for granted that it would be taken into consideration, but we wished to make it

  1843
  clear. We hardly expected that His Majesty's Government would come forward and support a proposal of the House of Commons that the arbitrator should not take this fact into consideration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): I must protest against the line the noble Duke is taking in regard to this Bill. Certain Amendments were put into the Bill by your Lordships to which the House of Commons do not agree, and they propose certain others. My noble friend is not deserving of the strictures that have been passed upon him. Certain action has been decided upon by the Government in the House of Commons, and my noble friend is carrying out the decision that has been arrived at. If the noble Duke does not agree with this Amendment, let him move its rejection. It is not business simply to criticise without taking some direct step.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I cannot admit that the noble Duke's criticism is improper. The Government said the House of Commons did not agree to the proviso. Have they no control over the other House?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The Government supports the view of the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In contradistinction to what they supported here?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have been told that the Government are a miserable and weak-headed Government, and that nothing can be expected of us; that we are stupid both as regards England and Scotland.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I never said the Government were weak-headed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If these things had been said of the noble Duke he would be wanting neither in the intelligence to perceive them nor in the spirit to resent them; and the Government are not wanting in those respects.
  1844
  The course open to the noble Duke and his friends is easy. If they do not agree with the Commons, let them vote against them. If they are not prepared to do that, I think the noble Duke, out of consideration for Ministers who have not altogether a very easy duty in this House, should refrain from observations which can do no possible good.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am extremely sorry if anything that fell from me went beyond fair criticism. I did say this was a miserable Government, and I do not think that was unparliamentary. I never said they were weak-headed. Although I do sometimes speak strongly, I do not think I am ever discourteous. When a charge is brought against me I like to have, chapter and verse, what I have said that is wrong.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend was of course entitled to move that we insist on our Amendment, and in doing so he could, no doubt, have made a full statement which would have required an answer. But my noble friend did not desire to go to that length. Still, he is entitled to seek to obtain from the Minister of Agriculture some rather more ample explanation than that contained in the brief statement on the Paper of the reasons for which the Amendment was objected to by the Commons. The noble Earl has given no explanation beyond that which we can all glean from reading the line and a half printed on the Paper.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am sure no one would accuse the noble Duke of using discourteous language intentionally of any Member of the House. If it please him to call us a miserable Government, well, we must bear it as well as we can. I must confess, however, that it has not much effect upon me. I think there has been a great deal of discussion, I will not say irregular, but more or less personal on matters which lie rather outside the business we have got to do. What we all want to do is not to lose the Bill. Had we not better take steps to get to that end without delay?
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The next Amendment is in Clause 3—
  "In page 3, line 5, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'on his holding consistent with the principles of good husbandry."
  The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out the words "consistent with the principles of good husbandry." Perhaps I may be permitted to quote the views of Mr. Long on this Amendment. Mr. Long stated in the other House that if he thought the exclusion of these words would expose the land of the country the risk of wild experiments at the hands of those who knew very little about land cultivation, he would do his best to secure their retention; but he thought the clause placed the tenant in entirely satisfactory limitations, and he was afraid the introduction of the words might lead to confusion and litigation. I hope that in these circumstances your Lordships will agree to omit the words.
  Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The next of your Lordships' Amendments which the Commons amend deals with leases. It is—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 12, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'in contravention of the custom, contract, or agreement. Provided that this sub-section shall 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.''

  The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out paragraphs (a) and (b), and inserting the following paragraphs—

  " '(a) In the case of a tenancy from year to year as respects the year before the tenant quits the holding or any period after he has given or received notice to quit which results in his quitting the holding; or,

  '(b) In any other case as respects the year before the expiration of the contract of tenancy."

  I will again quote Mr. Long. Speaking on this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The whole difference between them narrowed itself down to a question of three
  1846
  years or one year. He thought there was a good deal to be said on behalf of the Lords Amendment, but he was bound to recognise that the Act of 1900 did interfere with existing holdings. This carried it further, because it interfered with leases, and interfered with them in a way which was somewhat serious. He believed there was a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the original form of this particular provision, and, on balance, he did not feel himself justified in offering opposition to the action of the Government."
  In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will agree to the Commons Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I hope the noble Earl sees the effect of the Amendment he is now proposing. It puts all these holdings on exactly the same footing as yearly tenancies. The result of that in Scotland will be seen in a very short time. So far from this being of any benefit to tenants, it will be of great disadvantage to them. Owners of land are but human, and they will not be likely to tie themselves up for a period of nineteen years when they will be bound by the same conditions as owners who let their land on yearly tenancies. Therefore I believe a great and prejudicial change will come over the system of agriculture in Scotland in consequence of this Amendment.
  LORD LOVAT: I also desire to protest against this Amendment, which can only have the effect of putting an end to nineteen years leases in Scotland. We shall at once revert to the system of yearly tenancies, which, I am afraid, will not lead to the best results. I fear that in consenting to this Amendment the Government have done so without fully considering its effect.
  LORD SALTOUN: I must join my protest to those of noble Lords who have spoken. In Scotland tenants have always regarded the nineteen years lease as securing them fixity of tenure, but by this Amendment that will be taken away. We Scottish landowners will have to adopt the one-year lease system for the future, and I confess with great regret

  1847
  that I fail to see how that can in any way improve the conditions between landlord and tenant.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I now come to a rather technical Amendment. The Amendment inserted by your Lordships was as follows—
  "In Clause 3, page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word 'deterioration' to the end of clause, and to insert the words 'as is required by this section or in respect of other provision made for the purpose of complying with this section.
  "(4) In this section the expression 'arable land' shall not include land in grass, which by the terms of any contract of tenancy is to be retained in the same condition throughout the tenancy."
  The Commons have amended this Amendment by leaving out the words—
  "Or in respect of other provisions made for the purpose of complying with this section."
  They insert in lieu thereof the following Amendment—
  " 'In page 3, line 22, to leave out the words 'Manures as defined by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been used,' and to insert the words' Improvements comprised in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which have been made."
  If it is desired by any noble Lord, I will explain this Amendment.
  Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I am glad to be able to say that I think the Amendment sent up to us meets the point in view. Personally I am quite satisfied with it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: In Clause 4 your Lordships agreed to the following Amendment—
  "In page 4, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'goods, implements, produce or stock' and insert the words 'household goods or his implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in connection with the holding." Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable—
  1848

  '(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 month 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 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; or

  '(e) In the case of leases for fourteen or more years current at the passing of the Act."

  The Commons amend this Amendment by leaving out paragraph (e).
  Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I understand that the whole of our Amendment is accepted by the House of Commons with the exception of paragraph (e). It was upon that paragraph that we in Scotland relied to save our existing contracts. We had resolved to bear the disadvantage if only we could save our existing contracts. We are now denied that privilege. If this Amendment is resisted, there is a great danger of losing the Bill for those south of the Tweed, to whom it may be an advantage; but I think the omission of paragraph (e) is unfair and improper in itself and will have extremely bad results in Scotland. I most earnestly enter my protest against the breach of existing contracts, and I shall take the one course open to me of placing on the records of this House my protest against this procedure, so that it shall not be quoted against me that I have agreed to it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I now come to the last Amendment. Your Lordships inserted in Clause 4, page 4, line 11—
  "(2) Any question arising under this section as to whether a landlord acted without good and sufficient cause or for reasons inconsistent with good estate management shall, for the purposes of the provisions as to arbitration

  1849
  relating to the statement of a case and any appeal there from be deemed to be a question of law."
  The Commons disagree to this Amendment, because they consider that the questions are not questions of law.
  Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: This is the most important point in the Bill except perhaps Clause 4, and the lucid explanation which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack previously gave us only increases the difficulty. Such an important and intricate matter as what is good estate management ought not to be left to an arbitrator whose primary duty is to consider the values of manures. I pointed out before that it was quite evident that a mind capable of adequately dealing with manurial matters would probably be quite in competent to deal with these larger and more important questions. The noble Earl agreed. I had an Amendment on the Paper and so had the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn, and the insertion of this sub-section was and absolute agreement. I would appeal to the noble Earl and the Government whether they really think that it is just to leave is in this position—that these important questions of estate policy should be decided by an ordinary arbitrator. We are perfectly aware that any of these questions may be referred by the arbitrator to a legal tribunal, but what we want to enforce is that the arbitrator shall not him self decided upon them. The noble Earl surely on this subject has an opinion of his own that he is going to stand by.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I regert that I cannot meet the appeal of the Duke. I have done all I can to meet reasonable appeals, but it is obvious that I cannot meet this appeal at the last moment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I listened with great attention to the explanation with which the noble and learned lord on the Woolsack kindly favoured us, but I do not think it quite
  1850
  touched the point which interests us on this side. We feel that in many cases the difference that may arise is not one which ought to be disposed of by the class of person who presumably will be appointed to act as arbitrator under this Bill. It is quite true that where you have a simple question of fact it is not desirable that it should go beyond the arbitrator, but when you come to such a question, for example, as whether the tenant whom the landlord seeks to dispossess is a person who has habitually misconducted himself, an evil liver, it does seem to us rather hard that a point of that kind should be left entirely to the arbitrament of one of these arbitrators, who may be an auctioneer in a country town, perfectly competent to deal with the manurial value of certain substances, but not competent to deal with the more important primary duty is to consider the values matter. I do not think the explanation of the noble and learned Lord quite met our case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not hold that the arbitrator indicated by the Bill is necessarily the best person to decide the character and the general conduct of a tenant apart from his agricultural abilities. That is rather a matter for a jury; but I would point out how "cribb'd, cabin'd, and confin'd" the authiority is. The Amendment of your Lordships simply provided for the circumstance where a landlord acts without good and sufficient cause. I think that this provision would relate to an agricultural cause. It may be otherwise, however, and if so there is a defect, but that, again, is not really a question of law. I interpret the meaning of the Amendment, as it strands, as relating to agricultural reasons and that it does not involve any consideration of a moral character.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Lord say that the other reasons would never be taken into consideration?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I should not like to say that without referring to the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL. EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords in lieu of the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, agreed to.

  SMALL HOLDINGS COMMITTEE.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is expected soon to publish the Report of the Small Holdings Committee.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I received the Report of Lord Onslow's Committee on Friday last. It was presented to both Houses of Parliament at once, and was ordered to be printed. I sent a message to to the printers yesterday urging them to issue the Report at the earliest possible moment. The printers say that they are overwhelmed in other work, but I hope that the Report will be circulated in the course of the next few days.

  ROYAL COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  1. Marine Insurance.

  2. Street Betting.

  3. Licensing (Removal of Doubts).

  4. Removal of Offensive Matter.

  5. Burials.

  6. Recorders, Stipendiary Magistrates, and Clerks of the Peace.

  7. Trade Disputes.

  8. Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2).

  9. Census of Production.

  10. National Galleries of Scotland.

  11. Land Tax Commissioners.

  1852

  12. Expiring Laws Continuance.

  13. Notice of Accidents.

  14. Agricultural Holdings.

  15. Town Tenants (Ireland).

  16. Education (Provision of Meals).

  17. Workmen's Compensation.

  18. Public Trustee.

  19. Falkirk and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation.

  20. Ure Elder Fund Order Confirmation.

  21. Edinburgh Suburban Electric Tramways Order Confirmation.

  22. Ardrossan, Saltcoats and District Tramways Order Confirmation.

  23. Dunbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation.

  24. Dunfermline and District Tram ways Order Confirmation.

  HIS MAJESTYS SPEECH.
  And afterwards His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Command) as followeth—
  My Lords and Gentlemen,
  The marriage of My niece to the King of Spain took place last June in Madrid, and the ceremonywas attended by the Prince and Princess of Wales. Happily, their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain were mercifully preserved from being injured by the outrage committed against them.
  The recent visit of the King of Norway with the Queen, My daughter, has given Me sincere pleasure, and cannot fail to promote friendly relations between the two Countries.
  My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
  The Conference which met at Algeciras, on the invitation of the Sultan, to consider the introduction of reforms into Morocco, concluded its labours by the signature of an International Act which should be conducive to an improvement of the situation in Morocco.
  There has been a distinct improvement in the condition of affairs in Crete, and the Powers are still giving close attention to the reforms which are being gradually introduced into the administration of the Macedonian vilayets.
  My Government have concluded Agreements with the French and Italian Governments for the maintenance of the status quo in the dominions of the Emperor Menelek in Abyssinia, and for the regulation of the traffic in arms on the Somali Coast.
  In conformity with the Declaration of the 8th April, 1904, concerning the New Hebrides, a Convention with France has been signed for the purpose of putting an end to the difficulties arising from the absence of jurisdiction over the natives, and of settling land disputes in those islands.
  My Government have concluded satisfactory arrangements with the German Government in regard to our respective frontiers in the neighbourhood of Lake Tchad and Lake Victoria Nyanza, and with the Government of the French Republic respecting the Anglo-French boundary between Lake Tchad and the Niger.
  The boundaries between the Anglo-Egyptian Soudan and the Congo State have been satisfactorily swettled by an Agreement which has been signed with the Sovereign of the Congo State, and the eastern administrative boundary of Egypt has been delimited by a Joint Commission with the Government of Turkey.
  A Conference, in which my Plenipotentiaries took part, was held at Brussels in October to revise the Regulations instituted under the Brussels Act for the restriction of the liquor traffic in Africa, and a Convention was signed, which will shortly be laid before you.
  The visits of friendship which the Amir of Afghanistan will shortly pay to the Governor-General of India is a gratifying indication of the amicable relations that exist between the Amir and my Government.
  In pursuance of the promise given in my speech at the opening of Parliament,
  1854
  the arrangements for the establishment of Responsible Government in the Transvaal have now been completed, and I have caused Letters Patent to issue under the Great Seal. The Instruments providing for the grant of a similar Constitution to the Orange River Colony are in preparation.
  I trust that during the coming year the new form of Government will come into full operation and will exert a powerful influence not only in securing the peace and prosperity of both Colonies, but in contributing to the unity and strength of my possessions in South Africa.
  Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
  I thank you for the liberality with which you have made provision for the services of the year.
  My Lords and Gentlemen:
  A measure for further extending and facilitating the provision of cottages and allotments of land by the Rural District Councils of Ireland for the use of labourers and for conferring other benefits on this deserving class of My subjects has passed into law. I am happy to say that the country continues tranquil and that the general improvement in the state of the peasantry makes the failure of the potato crop, which has in some districts been serious, a less grave misfortune than it would have been in former times.
  A Bill relating to the Tenancy of certain Classes of houses in Ireland, which has also been passed, will place the law on a more equitable footing and remove a long-standing sense of grievance.
  Important measures have received My sanction for the Amendment of the existing Merchant Shipping Laws, having in view alike the well-being of the seamen and the interests of shipowners, and for taking a periodical census of the industrial production of the country.
  A measure has been passed amending the Law in regard to Trade Disputes, which will, I hope, remove all legitimate cause of grievance, and I have also given My assent to an Act to amend and

  1855
  consolidate the Law of Workmen's Compensation, extending the benefits of the Law to over 6,000,000 persons not included under the provisions of preceding Acts.
  I have assented to an Act for the amendment of the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings and to other measures affecting agriculture. I trust that the close attention which has been given to these questions will be of material benefit to that important industry.
  I hope that the Public Trustee Act will afford, especially to the poorer classes of the population, valuable facilities for the safe and inexpensive management and distribution of Trust funds.
  Further measures have been passed for placing the control of the National Galleries in Scotland on a better footing, for abolishing the property qualification previously required of County Justices, for more effectually dealing with the evils incident to the prevalence of street betting, and for making provision for the feeding of school children.
  I regret that, notwithstanding the protracted consideration which you have given to the improvement of primary and secondary education, no settlement of the difficulties which surround this question has been arrived at.
  I recognise the zeal which you have devoted to your arduous labours, and I pray that their results may have the blessing of Almighty God.
  Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
  After which the Lord Chancellor said:—
  My Lords and Gentlemen, By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name, and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the Twelfth day of February next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the Twelfth day of February next.