Sitting of 20 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Huddersfield, in the room of Sir James Thomas Woodhouse, knight (a Commissioner of Railways).— (Mr. Whiteley.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Blairgowrie, Rattray, and District Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Edinburgh Corporation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation (Superannuation)," presented by Mr. Sinclair, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Thursday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Clydebank and District Water and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill, Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill.
Amendments to Dover Harbour (Works, etc.) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Two Petitions from Wistanstow, against alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Mile End, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women from Bromham; Crossgates; Leytonstone; and Teignmouth; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL HIBERNIAN ACADEMY AND METROPOLITAN SCHOOL OF ART, DUBLIN.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Committee of Inquiry into the work carried on by the Royal Hibernian Academy and the Metropolitan School of Art, Dublin, together with Minutes of Evidence, Appendices, and Index (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES (GOVERNMENT GRANTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto

  Seamen.

  Marines.

  Stokers.

  Borne on the 5th November

  2,152

  169

  1,505

  In Barracks on night of 4th November

  1,316

  43

  433

  In Barracks on night of 5th November

  1,195

  37

  493

  No marines have been drafted to the Royal Naval Barracks for duties in the
  (ordered 25th July; Mr. Gulland); to lie upon the Table.

  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Copy presented, of Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years which have not been presented for payment, and which have been written off on the 13th November, 1906, from the total amount of Notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3732 and 3733 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  COOLIE LABOUR.
  Return presented, relative thereto (Address 26th March; Mr. Nield); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 357.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Seamen, Marines, and Stokers in Royal Naval Barracks on 4th and 5th. November.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many seamen, marines, and stokers respectively were borne on the books of the Royal Naval Barracks on 5th November; how many of each class were in barracks on the nights of 4th November and 5th November when the rioting took place; and whether marines have since been drafted for regular duties into the Royal Naval Barracks.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The numbers asked for are as follows:—.
  barracks, but 100 marines have been accommodated for street patrol duties.

  Grievance of Mr. W. J. Tapling, Town Postman at Birkenhead.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. W. J. Tapling, town postman at Birkenhead, has been acting as sorting clerk for long periods during the last four years to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, and yet is denied the opportunity to qualify for the appointment of sorting clerk; and whether he will take steps to remove the grievance complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The case of Mr. W. J. Tapling is under my consideration.

  The Channel Fleet-Leave at Christmas.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make inquiries as to the possibility of the Channel Fleet spending Christmas in England; whether he is aware that at Christmas, 1905, the Atlantic Fleet was called home for the Christmas leave, and the Channel Fleet was sent away, and that after this year's manœuvres the ships of the Atlantic Fleet proceeded to their respective ports and gave seven days leave, while the Channel Fleet returned to Portland and only gave four days leave; and whether

  Total length in miles.

  Total cost.

  Cost per mile.

  Time under construction.

  Time open for traffic.

  (Estimated) Surplus over working expenses, in last 12 months.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  £

  £

  To 31st Dec. 1905.

  Sierra Leone (2' 6" gauge)

  226½

  993,870

  4,388

  8 years

  To Baiima since 23rd Aug. 1905

  £6,336

  Gold Coast (3' 6" gauge)

  168

  1,781,756

  10,606

  5 years

  To Kumasi since 1st Oct. 1903

  £47,941

  Lagos (now Southern Nigeria) (3" 6" gauge)

  125

  882,961

  7,064

  4½ years

  To Ibadan since Mar.1901

  £15,873

  Uganda Railway (3" 3" gauge)

  584

  5,398,734

  9,244

  5½ years

  1st March 1902

  £56,678

  it is proposed that the Channel Fleet, which is due to arrive at Portland on or about the 29th instant, is only to have three or four days leave, and then proceed to Vigo, thus again spending Christmas away.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Channel Fleet ships undergo their annual refit in the home dockyards, and then their crews obtain fourteen days' leave by watches. The ships of the Atlantic Fleet, being refitted at Gibraltar, do not have this advantage, and so leave at Christmas is afforded to them in lieu.

  West African Railways.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, the Lagos, and the Uganda railways, he can furnish the following particulars, total length in miles, total cost, cost per mile, length of time under construction, length of time open for traffic, and estimated surplus over working expenses towards the cost of interest and sinking fund in the last twelve months.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The particulars asked for by the hon. Member are as follows:—.

  Endowment of the Bishopric of Singapore.
  MR. MASSIE: To ask the Under Secretary of State the Colonies whether he is aware that at a meeting of the State Council of the Native State of Selangor, held at Kuala Lumpur on 13th August, 1906, a sum of 7,500 dollars was appropriated, at the instance of the British Resident, towards the endowment of a bishopric of Singapore, a British Colony; and whether he will take steps to prevent this taxation of the Mohammedan and Chinese population of a native State in aid of a foreign Christian institution.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The new diocese for which this sum was voted includes the Federated Malay States as well as the Straits Settlements. In accordance with the Secretary of State's instructions, it was carefully explained to the Sultan and the native Members of Council that the proposal to grant this sum was in no way pressed upon them, and that it was entirely within their discretion to make or refuse the grant. The native members unanimously approved the vote. The Secretary of State as at present advised sees no reason for interference.

  Postal Deliveries at Carrigallen.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH;. To ask the Postmaster-General if a second daily delivery of letters will be given to Carrigallen, as the people of that locality suffer inconvenience at present from having only one delivery.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have looked again into this question; but in view of the high cost of the existing service to Carrigallen as compared with the amount of correspondence, I am sorry to find I should not be justified in affording the further facility desired.

  Imprisonment for Contempt of Court.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.): To ask Mr. Attorney-General, in how many cases, including high court and county court, were orders for committal in respect of non-compliance with orders for monetary payments made during the last ten years; how many of the 82,590 persons said to have
  600
  suffered imprisonment during the last ten years for non-compliance with orders of the court for monetary payments were so imprisoned in respect of a judgment debt of £2 or under that sum; and how many of the said number were so imprisoned where the judgment debt was in respect of money lent or interest thereon.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The Attorney-General much regrets that he has not the information asked for. He has no Department, and is able to Answer those Questions only which fall within his personal knowledge. He has made inquiry upon the subject of the Home Secretary, who states that the information required is not in the possession of his Department, and that he believes that it does not exist.

  Fines for Irregular School Attendances—Case of William Carrington, of Walsall.
  MR. WARDLE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of William Carrington, tried at the Walsall Police Court on 5th November, in which William Carrington was fined 2s. 6d. for the irregular attendance of his daughter, notwithstanding that Dr. Stead certified that the child in question was suffering from heart disease and St. Vitus' dance and had been kept at home by his express instructions; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My attention has not previously been called to the case, but I will make inquiries into it.

  Sale of the Beresford Estate, County Carlow.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have already advanced purchase money on the Beresford estate, Carlow County; that the farm at Kilcloney, on the same estate, from which Mr. Walters had been evicted, can be regarded as a separate estate; that the vendor

  601
  agreed to accept the amount of purchase money allocated for this farm by the inspector of the Estates Commissioners, and that the evicted tenant agreed to buy on the same terms; and, under these circumstances, why has the purchase money for this farm not been advanced, and why has the evicted tenant not been reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that a portion of the estate in question has been sold by the landlord to the tenants by direct sale. The Commissioners are in negotiation for the purchase of the residue of the estate, including the townland of Kilcloney, upon which it is proposed to reinstate certain evicted tenants. The sale has not yet been completed, owing to a difficulty concerning a right of way for the landlord to which objection is made by one of the evicted tenants proposed to be reinstated. The matter is under consideration.

  Purchase of the Earl of Drogheda's Estate, Queen's County—Arrears of Rent.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the proposed sale of the estate of the Earl of Drogheda, near Rosenallis, Queen's county, to the tenants, arrears amounting to from one to one and a half's years rent have been added to the purchase; and, in view of this procedure and the terms of purchase agreed upon, amounting in some instances to 26·3 years purchase of existing rents, can he say whether the Estates Commissioners are prepared to sanction the sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the case of the estate in question is at present in the hands of their inspector, who has been directed to make an inspection and furnish a report thereon. No ruling as to sanction or otherwise will be made by the Estates Commissioners until they have their inspector's report before them, and the matter referred to in the Question will be then duly considered.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Claims of Peter Malone.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state upon what grounds the Estates Commissioners reject the claims of Peter Malone, whose father was evicted from a holding on the Sandes estate, Garrymore, Mountmellick, seeing that he has two sisters to provide for, and that the farm he occupies, though nominally one of 70 acres, contains only 12 acres of arable land.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, after full consideration of the merits of the case referred to and the report of their inspector thereon, they decided, in the exercise of their discretion, not to take any action towards bringing about the reinstatement of Peter Malone in the holding from which his father was evicted.

  Applications for Re-instatement of Evicted Tenants at Carrigallen.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement from the following evicted tenants in the vicinity of Carrigallen, county Leitrim, viz., Francis Donlon, Errew, on the Latouche estate, Patrick Prunty, Kilbracken, on the estate of Colonel Penefeather, Patrick Reilly, Killahurk, on the estate of Colonel Storey, and Francis O'Rourke (as representative of Francis Masterson), Tully North, on the estate of the Earl of Leitrim; and what decision, if any, has been come to by the Commissioners in those cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that applications for reinstatement have been received from Francis Donlon, Patrick Prunty, and Francis O'Rourke, but not from Patrick Reilly. The applications of Donlon and O'Rourke have been referred to an inspector for inquiry and report, but no steps have yet been taken upon the application of Patrick Prunty, which was only recently received. The Commissioners have not yet come to a decision in any of these cases.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Courts Martial.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Departmental Committee appointed some time ago by the Admiralty for the purpose of inquiring into the subject of courts martial and punishments in the Navy generally has concluded its labours; and, if so, whether the House will be afforded any opportunity of knowing what recommendations have been made by such Committee.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Committee appointed to inquire into the question of procedure at courts martial is still sitting, but hopes to be able to report at an early date.

    Case of John Beer, Royal Marine Artillery.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the sentence of eighteen calendar months imprisonment with hard labour recently inflicted by a naval court martial at Malta upon John Beer, a gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery, of the battleship "Queen," convicted of behaving with contempt to and attempting to strike with a weapon a superior officer, also with striking and making use of threatening and insulting language; whether he will state what was the nature of the weapon as well as of the striking referred to, the age of the prisoner, and whether he was sober at the time, and what his previous character was; did the whole of the charges arise out of one transaction and occur on board ship or, if not, where; and what is the rating of the superior officer referred to, and has the sentence been confirmed by the Admiralty.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The particulars set out in the first part of my hon. friend's Question are correct. The weapon was a mess kettle, and the striking was a kick in the thigh. The prisoner, whose age is twenty-eight, was sober at the time, and his previous character was "good." The whole of the charges (five in number) arose out of one incident which occurred on board the "Queen," and the superior officers were all sergeants
    604
    of the Royal Marine Artillery. The Judge-Advocate of the Fleet has pronounced the charges to be in order, the proceedings regular, and the sentence in due form and within the powers of the Court, and the Admiralty have decided that the sentence shall be carried out.

    Flogging in the Navy
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the punishment of flogging in the Navy is now entirely abolished; and, if not, will he state the regulations now in force which sanction it.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As I stated in the course of the debate on the Address on 21st February, flogging and birching, though still in the list of punishments authorised by the Naval Discipline Act, have been suspended by Admiralty order, the former since 1881, and the latter since 30th January last. The King's Regulations authorise caning on the breech with the clothes on in the case of boys and buglers under eighteen, but by Admiralty orders dated 2nd March, 1906, this punishment is only to be inflicted under the actual order of the captain, and is not to be carried out in public.

    Tristan da Cunha
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to send a warship to the Island of Tristan da Cunha this year; what period has elapsed since the last warship was sent; and, in the event of no warship being available, whether a mail will be despatched by any other means.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty are now in communication with the Colonial Office as to the best method for securing communication from time to time with Tristan da Cunha. The expense of sending a man-of-war on a special mission of 3,200 miles is very great.

    Contractors and Admiralty Secrets.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any, and, if any, precisely what guarantees of secrecy are exacted from private contractors who are permitted to visit Woolwich Arsenal to

    605
    copy designs for new torpedoes; and whether, in the interests of national defence, he will confine the manufacture of such newly designed torpedoes to Government workshops.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Private contractors, equally with Government officials, are bound to observe secrecy under the Official Secrets Acts. It has been considered to be in the interests of national defence to have an alternative source of supply in the case of torpedoes as well as of guns, ships and other warlike implements.

    Manufacture of Guns at Woolwich Arsenal.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the heavy guns of the 12-inch, Mark VIII. pattern, as fitted in fifteen of our battleships, are a Woolwich design; and whether a number of these guns made in Woolwich Arsenal were shifted last year owing to serious defects.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Some of the guns of Woolwich manufacture were removed from ships last year for adjustment, and have since been re-issued. The defects were not considered serious.

    German Gun and Torpedo Manufactures.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the practice of the German Admiralty to order their torpedoes and guns entirely from private establishments.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As the German Admiralty have themselves made no public announcement as to their practice in this matter, I submit to my hon. friend that it would seem to be beyond the province of the British Admiralty to make any statement on the subject.

    Crimean Veterans—Case of W. Geoghegan, of Tullamore.
    MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that William Geoghegan, Tullamore, an old Crimean soldier, is at present subsisting on 1s. 6d. per week out door relief granted him by the local board of guardians;
    606
    that Geoghegan was wounded in Sebastopol, and his brother killed at Inkerman; and, seeing that Geoghegan is 74 years of age and no longer able to work, and holds a medal for bravery at Sebastopol, will he say what course ho proposes to take in this case to relieve the local rates from the cost of supporting this old soldier.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I have been in communication with the hon. Member on this case. It appears from the man's records that he did not land in the Crimea till October, 1855, nearly a month after the siege was over, and was therefore not entitled to receive the Crimean medal. The statement that he was wounded in Sebastopol is quite uncorroborated. The Crimean medal stated to be in his possession was not issued to him by this Department, and, moreover, he informed the Chelsea Commissioners in 1902 that he had lost his Crimean medal. Under these circumstances Geoghegan is not entitled to a pension.

    Sofas for the New War Office.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of sofas contracted to be supplied to the new War Office.
    MR. HALDANE: One new sofa has been authorised for the resident clerks in the new War Office, and it is proposed to ask for an additional sofa for the use of the lady typists for cases of fainting.

    Vaccination in India.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that during the season of 1903–4, 2,748,638 persons were vaccinated in Bengal, and that of that number 2,066,716 were vaccinated with human lymph; that in the Bombay Presidency human lymph continues to be used for vaccination in the majority of cases; that the use of human lymph in India is liable to propagate leprosy, a disease that is on the increase; and whether, in view of the liability of propagating other bad diseases, and of the fact that, owing to the heat of the climate, glycerinated calf lymph does not keep well, he will put a stop to this system of

    607
    vaccination, seeing that the re-vaccinated British troops are not exempt from smallpox.
    THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR INDIA (Mr. John ELLIS,): Bengal and Bombay for special causes are behind other parts of India in introducing calf lymph, but both provinces are endeavouring to extend its use, and thereby reduce the risk of communicating disease. The method of preserving calf lymph in India in an aseptic form has of late years been improved, and the preparations now made are reported to withstand the climate. In the meantime the Secretary of State cannot undertake to stop the present system of vaccination.
    MR. LUPTONasked if it were not the fact that smallpox in India was not diminished by vaccination and——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is endeavouring to get in a speech.

    White Labour in the Rand Mines.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the official Returns in the Colonial Office materially traverse the statement that the employment of whites upon the producing mines of the rand increased from 10,122 in May, 1904, to 14,927, or 47 per cent., in August, 1906.
    THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): It should be borne in mind that a non-producing mine becomes a producing mine as soon as the shaft strikes the auriferous reef, and persons working in it are by this simple fact transferred to a producing mine.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I did not ask as to that.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The number of persons employed in producing mines upon the Rand has tended therefore steadily to increase during the period specified in the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his figures are in substance correct. But it would be erroneous to suppose that these figures indicate a higher proportion of white men to coloured, of white men to stamps
    608
    working or to output produced, or to profit realised, or even of drills to stamps; for in every one of these particulars the conditions of the industry have deteriorated during the period in question.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked if it was usual for a Minister in replying to a Question to volunteer information not asked for.
    MR. CHURCHILL: In answering the Question I was anxious that my Answer should not mislead the House.

    Tristan da Cunha.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has at any time suggested to any of the missionary societies that a minister of religion should be sent to the Island of Tristan da Cunha; whether a clergyman has recently gone there; and whether any request for a mail to be sent there has been received from any of the inhabitants of the island.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel has been approached in the matter, but the clergyman who is now resident on the island, the Reverend J. G. Barrow, offered his services independently. Letters have been received from the inhabitants indicating the possibility of a shortage of provisions and expressing hopes that a ship may be sent to the island. The question of arranging for an early visit to the island is engaging the attention of the Admiralty and the Colonial Office.

    Public Works in Mauritius.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in consequence of the expenditure of the local government in Mauritius for military purposes, works of general benefit to the residents, such as the creating of a disinfecting station, the foundation of a bacteriological institute, and a regular scientific campaign against malarial fever, have had to be adjourned over and over again; and can he say whether there is any possibility of these works being now undertaken.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have been asked by my right hon. friend to answer this Question. The reply to the first part is

    609
    in the negative. A director has been engaged for the bacteriological institute, a disinfecting station exists, and the Mauritius Government are considering how further measures against malaria can best be taken.

    International Police for Morocco.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what progress has been made in the formation of the international police force in the coast towns of Morocco, in view of the continued unrest existing among the native population.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The forming of the regular police force as contemplated by the Act of the Algeciras Conference will not be completed till after the ratification of the Act, which will, I trust, not be long delayed. In the meantime, the question of what measures, if any, may be required for protection against outbreaks of disorder has received the attention of the two Governments who are most concerned with the situation at Tangier.

    German South-West Africa.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the German Imperial Government in order to insure the more adequate policing of the southern border of German South-West Africa.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I presume the hon. Member refers to the recent raid by the man Ferreira and a few followers of his. It is recognised by both the local Governments of the Cape Colony and of German South-West Africa that consideration must be paid to the large extent of the frontier and to the impossibility of maintaining a sufficient body of men on either side to prevent all chance movements across the border. The only action taken in regard to the Ferreira raid has been the communication made by the Governor of the Cape Colony to the Governor of German South-West Africa, to which the Under-Secretary for the Colonies referred in his Answer on the 12th instant†. Full details are not
    † See (4) Debates, clxiv, 1053–4.
    610
    yet in the possession of His Majesty's Government, but when received they will be communicated to the German Government.
    MR. ASHLEY: And will they be communicated to this House?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I think it is unusual to promise to lay any Papers before they are received and considered.

    Macedonia.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under Article 12 of the agreement between the Turkish Government and the Imperial Ottoman Bank, which is confirmed by Article 1 of the Règlement for Macedonia, it is provided that the deficit in the Macedonian Budget shall be met by drafts on the present yield of the existing customs duties; whether such deficit is at present substantially made good; and whether, in that case, the additional revenue to be raised by the three per cent. increase in the customs duties will set free for other purposes such funds at present expended on the administration of Macedonia.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: We understand that the Turkish Government are wholly unable to meet out of existing revenues the obligations imposed upon them by Article 12 of the agreement with the Ottoman Bank, and in fact the last deficit has not yet been made good. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on the 14th instant‡.

    Dangerous Trades.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, during the first nine months of the present year, 483 cases of poisoning have occurred among workers in various industries; and whether he can promise early legislation with a view to dealing more effectively with the industries in which the cases occur.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Yes, I am
    ‡ See (4) Debates clxiv, 1492.

    611
    aware of these statistics of poisoning cases for the current year which are compiled by my Department. The Home Office has very full powers under the Factory Act of dealing with dangerous trades, in particular by the issue of regulations under Part IV. of the Act. That its action has been attended by a considerable measure of success is, I think, shown by the fact that the number of cases of poisoning has fallen from 1,331 in 1899 to 663 in 1905, a reduction of 50 per cent. in six years. Earlier in the session I laid on the Table of the House a memorandum showing the action taken by the Home Office with regard to dangerous trades, to which I would refer the hon. Member. Further codes of regulations are in preparation, among which I may mention a code for the horse-hair industries in connection with anthrax, and the revision of the existing codes for paints and colours and the enamelling of metals, which have been found to be inadequate. I may also mention that I am inquiring into the use of poisonous woods in certain manufactures. I do not think I can usefully propose further legislation on the subject at the present time, but, as the hon. Member is aware, the Government are taking an important step, and one which I anticipate will have beneficial results, in bringing industrial poisoning within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.

    Catford Vaccination Prosecution.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of E. M. Walden, of 37, Medusa Road, Catford, who has been summoned for not vaccinating his youngest child, he having been refused an exemption certificate on two successive occasions at the Greenwich police court by Mr. Kettle and another magistrate, notwithstanding that the same court had on two previous occasions given him exemption certificates in the case of other children; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such treatment of conscientious objectors.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that I can add nothing to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 14th instant. † As I then said, the only remedy
    † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 1462.
    612
    for the anomalies which at present occur lies in an alteration of the law, and legislation for this purpose would be in the hands of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board.

    County Court Procedure.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that persons summoned as defendents in county courts are generally required to attend at 9.30 a.m.; that such persons frequently learn, after losing a day in waiting, that the plaintiff has not paid the hearing fee, and that the case is struck off; and whether, in order to the saving of time of witnesses and parties, he will appoint some individual in each county court whoso duty it would be to inform parties and witnesses as early as may be that their further attendance is not required.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no jurisdiction over county courts and have no power to appoint their officers, but I will communicate the question to the Lord Chancellor, who will no doubt cause such inquiries to be made as may be necessary.

    The Post Office and the Unemployed.
    MR. BROOKE (Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can make any arrangements whereby a certain number of the unemployed on the list of the Central Unemployed Committee in London can be taken on as temporary auxiliaries for post office work at the time of the Christmas pressure.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am glad to be able to inform my hon. friend that some weeks ago I communicated with the Central Unemployed Committee in London informing them that, if they desired, I would make arrangements whereby a certain number of suitable persons on their lists should receive employment, as temporary auxiliaries for post office work during the time of Christmas pressure. I stated that I should desire to give preference to married men, and that, of course, it was important that those who were selected should have some knowledge of the work or some aptitude for it. About 400 men recommended by the Committee have

    613
    been engaged, some of whom will begin work on the 22nd instant, and others on subsequent dates. I may add, in regard generally to the temporary auxiliaries employed by the Post Office, that I have raised the limit of age from forty to forty-five, and given instructions that preference is to be given to married men.

    School Baths.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a Report recently issued by the London County Council, giving particulars as to school baths in Germany and Holland; and whether in view of the advantages possessed by the school children of the two countries named from the use of such baths, he will take steps, at' an early date, loading to the general application of the same system in this country.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I have seen the valuable and intesting Report referred to in the Question, and I should hope that the very practical information which it contains may tend in the direction desired by the hon. Member towards a more general application of the system in this country. But to make it in any way compulsory would require legislation, which I am not prepared to undertake. Many local education authorities in this country are already putting into effect their powers under the Baths and Washhouses Acts.

    Railway Servants—Hours of Labour.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the many cases of excessive hours being worked on the different railways, he proposes to introduce any new and effective legislation amending the Hours Act of 1893, which will remove the onus of complaint from the men to the officers of the State Department.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): My right hon. friend is not at present disposed to introduce a Bill transferring the initiative in this matter from the men directly concerned to a departmental official. All complaints made by men
    614
    as to excessive hours are treated as confidential.

    Hull Level Crossings Signal Boxes.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the long hours worked by the gate signalmen at the St. George's Road and Hawthorne Avenue Level Crossings, Hull, on the North Eastern Railway; if he is aware that these men commence duty at 9.45 a.m. on Sundays, and remain on duty until 6 a.m. on Mondays, a period of twenty hours and fifteen minutes, and then do five turns of twelve hour shifts, and one of thirteen hours on night duty, making a total of ninety-three hours and fifteen minutes for the week on the main passenger line; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. KEARLEY: This is the first that the Board of Trade have heard of this complaint of extremely long hours, and they have communicated the hon. Member's Question to the railway company, and are now awaiting their reply.

    Liverpool Vaccination Case.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the death of an infant, as the result of vaccination performed when only a week old, in the Liverpool Lying-in Hospital; if he has received a resolution referring to this from the Liverpool and District Anti-Vaccination League; and what action he proposes to take to stop the practice of vaccinating newly-born infants.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): My right hon. friend has seen a newspaper report of the inquest in this case, from which it would appear that the death of the child took place from blood-poisoning; but that, according to the finding of the jury, there was no evidence to shew how the infection which caused the blood-poisoning was set up. He proposes to cause inquiry to be made as to the case. He has received the resolution referred to, and will give consideration to the subject to which it relates.
    MR. LUPTON: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether or not blood-poisoning is one of the most frequent results of vaccination?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Scottish Education Grant.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now state the arrangements which are proposed for a grant to Scotland equivalent to the additional grant which is provided for England and Wales under the Education Bill.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The additional grant referred to by the hon. Member has not yet been given to England and Wales, and therefore the question of an equivalent for Scotland does not arise, but due representation has been made to the Treasury as to the claims and needs of Scotland.
    SIR HENRY CRAIKasked what form the representation had taken, and if the right hon. Gentleman had borne in mind that the sum payable under the Education Bill might be very largely increased?
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid the matter had not yet taken definite form either in regard to England or Wales. The hon. Member might rest assured that proper representations would be made.
    LORD R. CECIL: But what will be their nature?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I can give no further information at present.
    MR. GULLAND: How can the Scottish Members make sure that Scotland will receive its proper share?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    MacDonnell Estate, Kilkee, County Clare.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the MacDonnell estate at Kilkee, county Clare, signed purchase agreements last February; that in
    616
    August they paid rent and interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. up to May 1906, and at present they have paid rent and interest from May to November at the same rate, viz., 3½ per cent., and whether, seeing that the landlord has been paid off in September, and that still the lands are not vested in the tenants, and that consequently they will have to pay 3½ per cent. instead of 3¼, he will make inquiries as to the reason the lands are not vested in the tenants.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that some delay in this case was unavoidably caused by the intervention of the summer vacation, but the work of vesting the holdings in the tenants is now being proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

    Police Protection at Miltown Malbay.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that M. C. Kenny, a carpenter at Quilty, Miltown Malbay, county Clare, has police accompanying him when proceeding to and from work at Spanish Point morning and evening; and whether, seeing that Kenny does not require the police to accompany him, as he can go through other parts of the country without the companionship of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and as West Clare is in a most peaceable state, he will have the police withdrawn from the hut at Quilty.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. It is considered necessary to afford to Mr. Kenny the protection which he is receiving, and it is not the case that he does not require protection. I understand that West Clare is in a comparatively peaceable condition. The police station at Quilty is a permanent station with a police district attached to it. A hut was originally erected there because no house was available for police purposes. The station cannot, in the Inspector-General's opinion, be dispensed with.

    Colonel Smyth's Gaybrook Land
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

    617
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain if the Estates Commissioners have power to prevent the consolidation of grass farms in a congested neighbourhood; and, if so, will they refuse to sanction the sale to Colonel Smyth, of Gaybrook, owner of large tracts of un-tenanted land, of a farm on another estate of which he has bought the tenants' interest in a congested neighbourhood.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have no power to prevent the consolidation of grass farms. They have, however, under the Act of 1903, a discretion to refuse to sanction an advance exceeding £3,000 to any one purchaser, and this discretion they duly exercise.

    Irish Land Purchase—Inquiry as to Solvency of Purchasers.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland do the inspectors on behalf of the Estates Commissioners, in the case of a direct sale, inquire into the solvency of proposed purchasers, and the cause of insolvency where found; if so, how do they treat cases in which tenants sign purchase agreements in order to avoid eviction, and evicted tenants, in order to recover a house for their families, borrow money to pay the landlord before he allows them to sign, in circumstances in which they are not free Agents; seeing that landlords and tenants conceal facts of this nature, will the inspectors be instructed regarding them; and are the Commissioners aware of such cases on an estate belonging to Colonel Smyth, of Gaybrook, Westmeath, sold or in course of sale.
    MR. BRYCE: The inquiries which the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners are to make are fully set out in the Instructions to Inspectors, dated 9th March, 1906 (Cd. 2881), to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. The Commissioners inform me that upon receiving their inspector's report they ask for any further information which they may consider necessary. The estate of Colonel Smyth, of Gaybrook, has not yet been inspected, and the Commissioners therefore have at present no information regarding the circumstances of that estate.

    Collinstown Evicted Tenant
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why, during the three years in which the Land Act of 1903 has been in operation, no provision has been made for the evicted family of the late Richard Riggs, the evicted farm on Colonel Smyth's Collins-town estate being vacant, and untenanted land being plentiful in Westmeath; is he aware of the condition of this evicted family; and can he say when the Com-missioners will be able to extend to this family the benefits whieh Parliament intended the Act to confer upon evicted tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet been able to inquire into the application for reinstatement of the representatives of the late Richard Riggs, and cannot say definitely when they will be able to do so. Inquiries into all applications will be made as soon as possible. The Commissioners have no information as to the present circumstances of the evicted family.

    Westmeath Evicted Tenant.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what practical steps the Estates Commissioners have taken during the last three years, with the dates of such steps, if any, for the purpose of having Edward Fagan, a Westmeath evicted tenant, reinstated or provided with a new holding; and can the Commissioners now say when Mr. Fagan may expect to benefit by the legislation of 1903.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Edward Fagan two applications for reinstatement, one referring to a holding on Edward Taaffe's estate, and the other to a holding on Elizabeth Carroll's estate. In the former case the Commissioners ascertained that Fagan was not evicted from the holding. He became a bankrupt, and his interest was sold by the Court of Bankruptcy, Mr. Taaffe being the purchaser. The Commissioners, therefore, decided that they could take no action in that case. The second application has not yet been inquired into,

    619
    but the Commissioners will have inquiry made as soon as possible.

    Irish Evictions.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the last quarterly Return, under Section 7 of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, shows that 711 evictions were carried out by registered letter in Ireland during the three months ending the 30th September; can he say what proportion of those notices were served with the object of forcing tenants in arrears to agree to exorbitant terms of purchase; and whether he proposes introducing legislation to abolish this mode of procedure.
    MR. BRYCE: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The Estates Commissioners tell me that they have no information which would warrant them in forming the opinion that notices under Section 7 of the Act of 1887 have been served with the object of forcing tenants to purchase at high rates. This conclusion appears to be supported by the fact that the figures for the September quarter of this year are more than 100 below the average for the corresponding quarters of the preceding fire years. In reply to the concluding inquiry of the Question, I would refer to my Answer to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for North Cork, on 20th March last,† in which I dealt fully with the matter. I am advised that a repeal of the section might prove to be an injury rather than a benefit to the tenants concerned, seeing that under the section they have a right of redemption for six months.
    MR. DELANY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of the 711 tenants who have become future tenants, lose all their rights under the Act of 1881, and does he think that is desirable?
    MR. BRYCE: I think, on the whole, the giving of notice under this section is rather a benefit to the tenants than otherwise.
    MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 228, 229.
    620
    eviction made easy clause, which the whole Liberal Party joined with us in resisting, is a benefit to the tenants?
    MR. BRYCE: Yes, but I will give the hon. Gentleman some figures. The number of tenants and sub-tenants actually dispossessed under that section of the Act in 1905 was ninety-six and five respectively. That is to say, less than 5 per cent. of the number served with eviction made easy notices. We have to consider this matter in its relation with other kinds of proceedings, and it is in that respect I say it may be a benefit to the tenants.
    MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 60,000 tenants in Ireland have, under this section, been deprived of all rights under all Land Acts?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not justifying the clause, but there are other steps that could be taken, and experience has shown that the proceedings under this section are not more unfavourable to the tenants than those under other Acts.
    MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we consider this one of the mo3t disastrous sections that have ever been passed?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not justifying the section. I am simply comparing its effects with the effects of proceeding in another way.

    Land Sub-Commissioners at Birr.
    MR. REDDY (King's County, Birr): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Messrs. Tuckey and Owens, Sub-Commissioners, who are appointed to sit at Birr on the 20th instant, did, when previously settling rents in that district, take a rent-office clerk in the employment of the landlord, Colonel Williams, with them on the car when inspecting farms on the property, and declined any interview with the tenants; can he say what reductions those Commissioners made in the rents on that occasion; whether he is aware that the tenants have resolved not to appear before Messrs. Tuckey and Owens; and will he see that other Commissioners are substituted.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that Messrs. Tuckey and Hunt are the members of the Sub-Commission delegated to sit at Birr on the 21st instant. Their names appear in the printed list of cases for such sitting which has been in circulation for some weeks. Mr. Owen, who is a Lay Assistant Commissioner, has reported to the Land Commission that on the occasion referred to in the Question, he gave a seat on his car to the landlord's representative, who was attending the inspection on his principal's behalf for the purpose of pointing out boundaries, and who, owing to the weather, was unable to keep pace with the car on his bicycle. Mr. Owen has further reported that on a like occasion he gave seats on his car to two tenants on the same estate when he was inspecting for fair rent purposes, that the tenant or his representative was present at the inspection of each farm, and that he (Mr. Owen) inspected all improvements pointed out to him by the tenant. The Land Commission point out that the decisions of the Sub-Commission Court in the cases upon Captain William's estate have already been notified to the parties concerned, who, if they are so advised, can appeal against those decisions. The constitution of Sub-Commission Courts for particular districts is decided by the Land Commission, and I have no control in the matter.

    Bankrupt Evicted Tenants.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention or the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been drawn to the case of Doyle, a bankrupt, which has been decided in the Court of Appeal (Ireland) last week, in which a point of law of universal application to such cases has been laid down, the effect of which is that evicted tenants, who may already have been declared bankrupts, or against whom judgments or debts may exist under which they are liable to be so declared in the ordinary course, may be compelled to hand over to the assignees in bankruptcy the tenancies or public moneys given to them on grounds of state policy, which was never contemplated'; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing an amendment of the law to enable the Estates Commissioners in respect of all past transactions to come in and prevent the moneys of the estate
    622
    being diverted to the assignee in bankruptcy or otherwise under such circumstances.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenant referred to in the Question was advanced a sum of £1,600 by the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating him in a holding in the county of Dublin, and that he also got a free grant of £250 to build a house; and that he immediately sold his interest in the new holding for £400? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what became of the free grant?
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I was not aware that the person in question had been an evicted tenant. I thought he was an ordinary purchaser. In reply to the Question on the Paper I have to say I am informed that the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case referred to was to the effect stated in the Question. I have only seen a newspaper report of the decision, but I gather from that report that the legal question involved in no way referred to evicted tenants. It merely determines that a purchase by a tenant of his holding from his landlord enures for the benefit of his creditors, where the tenant at the time of such purchase was a bankrupt. An evicted tenant who purchases a holding from the Estates Commissioners or from his former landlord is now in exactly the same position as any other tenant purchaser. His property (including his purchased holding) is available for payment of all debts legally due by him and not barred by the statute of limitations. To enable the Estates Commissioners to interfere in the manner suggested by the Question would give him a privilege as to the payment of his ordinary debts over a solvent purchaser which the Government do not consider to be just, and they are not prepared to introduce an amending Bill with that object in view.
    SIR E. CARSON: Was not the money advanced in this case to restore an evicted tenant taken possession of by the Court of Bankruptcy?
    MR. CHERRY: Not as far as I am aware.

    Mrs. Hinds' Killeshandra Estate.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether agreements for sale have been filed in the estate of Mrs. Henry Hinds' lands, Deramfield, Killeshandra, county Cavan; will he state what is the present position of this sale; when were the agreements filed; is there any untenanted land on the estate; and have the Commissioners offered to purchase same, and with what result.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that three agreements for the purchase of holdings on the estate in question were lodged with them in September, 1904. There are 204 acres of untenanted land on the estate, which the vendor desired to sell to the Commissioners and repurchase from them. The Commissioners saw objections to this course and offered to purchase this land, but not to resell it to the vendor. The vendor refused to accept this offer, and consequently the Commissioners refused to deal with the lands as an estate, or to make the advances asked for.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Will the Government interfere to prevent this estate being permanently hung up?
    MR. BRYCE: Perhaps the parties may be induced to reconsider the position.

    Arva Eviction.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the recent ejectment of one Mulligan from a house in the village of Arva, county Cavan; whether a force of 150 police was sent from the depôt in Dublin for the protection of the sheriff and his officers in the execution of the decree of ejectment; whether this force was conveyed to the locality by special train, travelling at night, and arriving at Arva at daybreak; and, if so what was the total cost to the public of the expedition, and under what circumstances was the employment of so large a force of police and their convey-
    624
    ance by special train at night considered necessary.
    MR. BRYCE: My attention was directed to the ejectment of Peter Mulligan at Arva, which was carried out by the sheriff on 6th September last. A force of 100, not 150, police was sent from the depot in Dublin for the protection of the sheriff and his officers. This force was conveyed by special train, but did not travel by night and arrive at daybreak; it left Dublin at daybreak, and arrived at Arva about eight o'clock in the morning. The total cost to the public in connection with the employment of the extra force amounts to about £136. The employment of the force, and their conveyance by special train, was considered necessary, because there was reason to apprehend that considerable resistance would be offered to the sheriff in the execution of his duty.

    Potatoes and Motor Spirit.
    MR. FERENS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will cause inquiry to be made by the Board of Agriculture for Ireland, whether it is possible profitably to utilise partially diseased potatoes for the manufacture of crude starch from which could be produced spirit for motor use.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have made inquiries into the question of the manufacture of alcohol from potatoes for motor use, the result of which did not tend to show that it would be possible to start a profitable industry of the kind in Ireland. The Department do not anticipate that there would be an annual supply of diseased tubers sufficient to warrant the expenditure of the large amount of capital necessary for the erection and equipment of the buildings which would be required for the manufacture of alcohol from potatoes.

    North Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if an inspector has visited North Kerry in connection with the reinstatement of evicted tenants; and, if so, with what result.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their records are not kept according to Parliamentary divisions; but, as regards the entire county of Kerry, 509 applications for reinstatement have been received, all of which have been referred to an inspector for inquiry and report. Up to the present twenty-six of the applicants have been reinstated by the Commissioners, and they understand that nineteen have been reinstated by landlords direct. In fifteen of the cases inquired into the applicant did not come within the scope of the Act; while in fourteen cases the Commissioners, for various reasons, refused the application. In fifty cases the former holdings are not now available; and there are still about 380 cases in which the applications have not yet been reported on, or, if reported on, have not been finally dealt with by the Commissioners.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 2,000 acres of untenanted land have been offered to the Estates Commissioners?
    MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; and I very much appreciate the action of the hon. Member in making the offer

    Imprisonment of Children.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condemnation, on page viii. of the Report of the General Prisons Board for Ireland for the year 1905–6, of the continuance by some magistrates of the practice of sending children of from nine to eleven years of age to prison, notwithstanding the provision already made by the Legislature to enable juvenile offenders to be dealt with otherwise; and whether the Government contemplate taking any action in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: My attention has been called to the remarks of the General Prisons Board for Ireland on the subject in question, and I entirely agree with the Board in their expression of regret that the practice of sending young children to gaol for minor offences still prevails in some cases. The hon. Member will see, however, by referring to page vii. of the Report, that such cases are compara-
    626
    tively few. In the year 1905 nine children under twelve years of age ware committed to prison. Two of these were discharged by the magistrates themselves, and in four other cases sentence was commuted by the Lord-Lieutenant. Some years ago the Irish Government sent a circular to the magistrates in Ireland calling their attention to the provisions of the law under which juvenile offenders can be dealt with otherwise than by imprisonment; and when any case occurs in which magistrates appear to have overlooked these provisions, it is the practice of the Government to direct afresh the attention of such magistrates to those provisions.

    Quarters for Prison Officials.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the wives, families, and female servants of certain prison officials in Ireland are compelled, by reason of the situation of the quarters provided by the Prisons Board, to reside within the walls of the prison for male convicts at Maryborough; and whether the wives, families and female servants of corresponding officials in the English and Scottish services are required, in any cases, to reside within the walls of male convict prisons in those countries.
    MR. BRYCE: The Governors of all Irish Prisons are required to reside within the precincts of the prisons, and are allowed to have their wives, families, and female servants living with them. In Maryborough Convict Prison, both the governor and the deputy-governor are provided with suitable houses within the prison walls, and no complaint has ever been received from them on the subject of their residence. I understand chat in England the quarters of the prison officers are not situated within the prison walls at any of the convict prisons, but in the case of certain of the local prisons the governor's quarters are within the prison walls.

    Maryborough Convict Prison.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief, Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Maryborough Convict Prison has recently been enlarged and reconstructed at a cost of about £2,600, he will say if the Treasury refused to

    627
    provide the necessary funds to enable official residences to be constructed for the families of prison officers outside the prison walls.
    MR. BRYCE: The answer is in the negative. The sum of about £5,000 has, with the approval of the Treasury, recently been expended in erecting warders' cottages outside the prison walls at Maryborough. It is, however, necessary for the governor and deputy-governor to reside within the prison precincts, as I stated in reply to the previous Question. I may observe that the estimated cost of the reconstruction of Maryborough Convict Prison is about £27,000, not £2,600.

    Irish Potato Crop.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received reports from Cromane, Inch, and Annascaul, in Kerry, regarding the failure of the potato crop; whether he intends to take any, and, if so, what steps in the near future to give those people employment during the coming winter; whether he has received proposals for the building of a road and the extension of a pier at Cromane; and, if so, when it is proposed to proceed with those works.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received reports which show that there has been a partial failure of the potato crop in the district of Cromane. Inquiries are at present being made into the circumstances of the other districts mentioned in the Question. The subject has received and will continue to receive the most careful attention of the Government, but until I have received further reports I am not in a position to say whether exceptional steps may be necessary for the relief of any distress which may arise. I have received resolutions passed at a public meeting in favour of certain works in the locality, and have referred them to the Congested Districts Board for their consideration.
    MR. DILLONasked whether before the end of the session the Chief Secretary would be in a position to make any general statement as to the result of any information the Irish Government may have ascertained concerning the general
    628
    failure of the potato crop throughout Ireland.
    MR. BRYCEsaid there was no evidence of a general failure of the potato. The failure appeared to be confined to certain parts of the country, which was of itself, of course, a very deplorable thing. He did not know at what time the session would come to an end, but it would be his desire to give any information in his possession at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. DILLONintimated that he would put down a Question on the subject.

    Transvaal—Depreciation of Property Values.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, if he is aware that there has been a loss in the market value of property in the Transvaal of upwards of £150,000,000 since the accession to office of the present Government, and that this, coupled with the uncertainty as to the future, has led to the stoppage of development work upon 24 non-producing mines and to the discharge of over 300 white workers earning £20,000 a month in wages; and if, having regard to the impossibility of obtaining other employment owing to the prevailing depression, as also to the stoppage of South African orders for machinery and other goods in Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, and Glasgow, he will do what he can to hasten the freedom of the Transvaal from the interference of Downing Street in the development of the natural resources, with due provision for the interests of British settlers.
    MR. J. WARD: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the loss in the market value of securities in this country during the late Administration was over £500,000,000 and whether this depreciation of home securities has not been the direct cause of much of our unemployment at home.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to answer that Question I would ask him whether it is within his own knowledge that securities quoted on the London Stock

    629
    Exchange have fallen in a much greater ratio since his own Administration began.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I am not on the Stock Exchange, as my hon. and gallant friend appears to be.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: No, I am not. I wish I were.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot answer a Question like that without notice in order that I may get friends better informed than myself to investigate the subject, As to the Question of the hon. Member for Stoke, I do not know that it is quite germane to this subject, although it certainly may bear on the conclusion formed from the Question as asked. I do not know whether all the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are correct, though I believe it to be the fact that there are now about 300 fewer white miners in non-producing mines than there were in May, 1904. I cannot profess to be impressed by his insinuations as to the cause of the depreciation, which began long before the present Government came into office, and which has become more acute since the adoption of Chinese labour. It was anticipated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe, that the introduction of indentured labourers would relieve the financial situation, but it was evident that it would do nothing of the kind before the last Government quitted office, now twelve months ago. I can only hope that when responsible Government is established—and we are doing everything in our power to expedite it—and as the process of repatriation is hastened, and South Africa reverts to a more normal and healthy condition of affairs the situation will gradually become clearer.
    MR. BONAR LAWasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the Undersecretary for Colonial Affairs had himself stated in the House on 22nd February that the action of the Government had had a big effect in causing a fall in the price of mines.
    MR. SEAVERNSasked whether six months before the
    630
    accession of the present Government to office, and during the time when there was a plentiful supply of Chinese labour in the Transvaal, the condition of general trade in the Transvaal and in South Africa generally was absolutely deplorable and much worse than it had been at any time since.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether any date could be named when the Letters Patent would be issued.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANcould not name any date, but it would not be far off.
    MR. FLAVINasked what interest the hon. Baronet had in the natural resources of the Chinese people.
    The following Question was asked and answered on Thursday, November 15th:—

    Royal Navy List.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the title page of the Royal Navy List for October, 1906, claims to be supported by the Admiralty; whether he is aware that the List (pages 640 and 653) condemns the naval policy of the Government, and quotes the Prime Minister as having abandoned the two-power standard; and whether the Admiralty intend to take any action in reference to the publication.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have not seen the statements in the Navy List of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complains. I will look into the matter.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the right hon. Gentleman remembered having made a statement to the House on Thursday last to the effect that the Plural Voting Bill would be taken that afternoon? How did it come about that, without any statement of the alteration of the Prime Minister's plans, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill was down for to-day?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the statement made concerned what then appeared to be likely. He said at the same time that the Plural Voting Bill was to be taken after the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill. Dissuasion having been prolonged on that Bill, naturally the other arrangement lapsed. He was sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought if the right hon. Gentleman consulted those through whom he made arrangements as to the course of business they would bear him out in his very distinct recollection that what was said was that, while the Plural Voting Bill might be taken on Monday, it would be better taken on Tuesday, because the Minister in charge would then be fully recovered. It was never suggested that the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill was to be taken de die in diem until the Report stage was completed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That was when there was an idea that this Bill would only take one sitting; and in ordinary circumstances it would only have taken one sitting. Any announcement made several days in advance at this time of the year is necessarily subject to alteration as events occur; and, if we were to be held literally to the text of our anticipations of the probable progress of business a few days in advance, we should never be able to make any intimation of that kind at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is teaching us not to adhere literally to anything that is said.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman uses words which imply that I am in the habit of deceiving the House. I wish to know if that is what he means? That is the meaning attaching to his words, whatever meaning he attaches to them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I used the words the right hon. Gentleman himself used. I do mean that on this occasion and on previous occasions the right hon. Gentleman has made statements not in accordance with—[The remainder of the phrase was lost in cries of "Shame" and "Withdraw."] He has allowed us, through carelessness of statement, to
  632
  anticipate a course of business which he has not adhered to. No one has ever represented the right hon. Gentleman as himself personally capable of misleading the House, nor is any word I have said capable of being twisted into that signification, by anyone who understands the English language.
  MR. FLAVIN: Nobody can understand you.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman sees that there is no question of a personal attack on him, if I have been fortunate enough to satisfy him on that point, may I now ask him whether he seriously thinks that it would be either proper or possible to attempt to finish the Bill which is the subject of discussion in the course of a single remaining sitting—a Bill turning on enormous principles, never before the House until yesterday?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that there is a willingness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, if another day is given besides to-day for discussion of this Bill at this stage, to allow us to finish the stage at eleven o'clock to-morrow night, without the necessity of removing the Eleven o'clock limit to-night. If that is so, I would raise no objection.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the suggestion made really emanated from himself, and an intimation was conveyed to him that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends agreed to the suggestion. With a large experience of long night sittings he had never known one entirely satisfactory to one side or the other. Without saying anything as to the character of the opposition to the Town Tenants Bill, it was apparent that strong feeling had been excited in reference to some of its provisions, and it was not possible to prevent the expression of that feeling. If the Government could see their way to agree to the suggestion, and the Opposition would also agree, he thought it would be for the benefit of the House generally if it were adopted.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he believed the idea came to him through the Whips.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Without discussing the patent rights attaching to it, I think the suggestion might with advantage be adopted. But I do think, seeing that the House has not had an opportunity of considering the Bill in Committee, that three days are inadequate. Holding this view strongly, I think, accepting it as a compromise, it will not be inexpedient to adopt the suggestion thrown out.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then the usual course will be followed, but to-morrow, for convenience, the formal suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule will be moved.
  MR. J. WARDasked when the next stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill would be taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would gladly give some forcast, but I have been frightened out of my wits this afternoon by the recent assertion as to "misleading the House." Under the circumstances I think I had better refrain from making the statement desired.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended, on consideration, to be printed. [Bill 354.]
  NEW BILL.
    SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL.
    "To amend the Acts relating to Electric Lighting," presented by Mr. Kearley; supported by Mr. Lloyd-George; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 355.]

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) further considered.
  MR. CARLILE MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans) moved to leave out from Clause 1 the words, "or his predecessors in title," and to insert the words, "or in which ho has, with the assent of the landlord, acquired the interest." The hon. Member pointed out that there was no time limit mentioned in the Bill with respect to improvements alleged to have been made
  634
  in the past. Alleged improvements might have been made a hundred years ago, and the difficulty of obtaining anything like reliable evidence as to the nature of such improvements made it highly desirable that the existing tenant should not have the power to revive such alleged improvements and make a claim for them. By the alteration proposed in his Amendment he hoped that difficulty might be overcome. Where such claims were made, there would be overwhelming difficulties in the matter of reliable evidence. The original owner of the property had perhaps long since died, and the original tenant would probably have also passed away years ago. Then, again, in a vast number of cases, it would be necessary to protect the poor against those who were poorer than themselves. Many of the owners of property who would be affected by the Bill were, as a matter of fact, poorer than their tenants; therefore it was only just and right that it should be made impossible for a tenant to revive ancient alleged improvements in which he had taken no part, but for which he was allowed to claim under the provisions of a most improper and unsuitable measure.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'or his predecessors in title' and insert the words 'or in which he has with the assent of the landlord acquired the interest.'"—(Mr. Carlile.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said the words in the Bill were taken from the Land Act of 1870, and had a definite meaning in the Irish Courts founded on a long series of judicial decisions.
  MR. CARLILE: And what is the meaning?
  MR. CHERRYsaid it would take him a very long time to go into the answer to that question. The effect of adopting the Amendment would be that where a man made an improvement and died in the following year, leaving the tenancy to his son, that son would have

  635
  no claim to be compensated for the improvement made by his "predecessor in title" within the meaning of the Act of 1870. The question of a time-limit would arise upon later Amendments.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the learned Attorney-General for Ireland had contended that the Irish Land Act of 1870, and the Acts of 1880 and 1887 had worked well. They on the Opposition side of the House did not consider that those Acts had worked well. They had led up to an expenditure of £120,000,000 of the British taxpayers' money, and perhaps this Bill would lead up to the expenditure of another £120,000,000. The words in the clause were susceptible of two meanings, and he maintained that they were not necessary, and ought to be omitted. What might happen in the event of the words "predecessors in title" being retained?" He himself held a house, the lease of which had forty-five years to run, and which he bought from the executors of the previous lessee. After making due calculation as to what the result would be after buying the lease, he spent £800 on improvements; and if these words were left in the Bill he might make a claim on the ground landlord for £800 at the end of his tenancy—so being paid twice over. He did not consider that that was just. Supposing he had made the improvement with the object of reselling the house, and had sold it at a profit, the purchaser, if these words were left in, would be entitled to go to the unfortunate landlord and say, "My predecessor in title spent £800 on improvements, and therefore I demand that sum from you." Then, a surveyor would have to be employed to assess what the probable cost of the improvement was. He himself was fortunate enough to make his improvement very cheaply. One estimate was £1,500, while it only cost £800. The right hon. Gentleman would see that his remarks were apposite, and illustrated a state of things which he could hardly believe any right-minded a man could desire to see perpetuated. The case showed what result might follow from the haphazard legislation of the Government. To take another case, the house next to his belonged to a lady who spent money in improving it. She died, and her executors sold the lease
  636
  at 190 years purchase. What that 190 years purchase would develop into if this Bill passed before the landlord got possession of his property he did not know. The Bill as it stood opened a long vista of lawsuits. Any number of skilled witnesses would have to be called in to say what the cost of the improvements had been, when the improvements were made, and under what circumstances, and the result would be that the person who had invested his money on the faith of what was ordinary right and fair dealing, would find that the bulk of the money he received for the house had gone in law expenses. In a commercial country like this the result of passing such a Bill would be confusion; rents would rise; and capital would be driven out of the country. [An Hon. Member on the MINISTERIAL Benches: No.] Was the hon. Gentleman prepared to let his property and at the end of a certain number of years pay compensation for all alleged improvements made on it? His experience of the, House, which was that of some years, was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were only anxious for this kind of legislation when they were quite certain that it would not affect themselves. He did not think that the words proposed to be inserted were very good words, because they would probably lead to litigation. A landlord might have given his consent years ago to the making of improvements, but that would be done in the ordinary way, and on the understanding that at the end of the tenancy the intention of both parties to the contract would have to be carried out. In the Grand Committee on 18th July last the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved an Amendment to limit the compensation for improvements made by tenants to the previous ten years. That Amendment was negatived, he believed without a division; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to be consistent he would vote for this Amendment now before the House.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that his objection to the clause was that the Government insisted on making it retrospective. He would illustrate the point from his own personal experience. He took a house from a gentleman who was

  637
  the executor of a previous tenant who had spent a very large sum in improvements. He had given a certain sum of money for the lease of the house, and he did not imagine that he should receive from the landlord at the end of his lease a large sum of money for improvements upon which he had not spent any money, but upon which his predecessor had spent a large sum of money. The actual tenant who would receive the benefit would not in many cases have carried out the improvements; they would have been carried out by a previous tenant, and it would be impossible for the landlord to check any claim made upon him. The difficulty arose from the determination of the Government to make the Bill retrospective. They had not, how ever, advanced one single argument in favour of doing so. What they had done was to refer to the land legislation of 1870 and following years. That argument appeared to him to be irrelevant. He thought it was one of the rhetorical tricks of the orator who, having no good argument, relied upon one that sounded plausible. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland had repeated the argument, it appeared that he thought that this Bill was justified by the Act of 1870. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to support his proposal upon two grounds, first, that town property was similar to agricultural land, and, secondly, that the legislation of 1870 was a success. As to the first proposition it seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman broke down hopelessly, as town property did not seem to have any similarity to agricultural property. As to the second, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was on weaker ground still. He had the audacity to get up on the Treasury Bench and tell thorn that the Irish land legislation had been a success. [NATIONALIST MEMBERS: Very successful for the landlords.] If hon. Gentlemen said that they meant, in other words, that it was a failure. He gathered from the Members for Ulster that they also did not approve of it, and as a humble inhabitant of the sister island he had always regarded the land legislation of Ireland as a triumph of mismanaged legislation. The Act of 1870 had led to dual ownership, with the
  638
  ultimate result that Parliament had been forced to pass a measure, not because they thought they were right but because the land law had got into such a mess that something had to be done. That was the Act of 1887, which pledged the credit of this country to an enormous amount to buy out the landlord and put the land in a single hand. In face of overwhelming arguments against this clause he would ask the House to reject it unless some better argument than that of the Act of 1870 could be brought forward.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,)said the noble Lord who had just spoken was very indignant with his right hon. friend the Attorney-General for having referred to the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881 as being precedents for the proposals contained in this Bill. The noble Lord forgot that those Acts were the law in Ireland. Then the noble Lord said that the Acts had not succeeded, but he would ask anyone who knew Ireland before 1870 and 1881 to go through the country now and tell them his experiences. Such a visitor would be struck by the enormous benefit which those Acts had conferred upon the country. They had wrought an entire transformation in the condition of the tenantry, and this must be admitted by anyone who knew their condition before the legislation was passed. Anybody who contrasted the conditions then and now would feel an endless debt of gratitude to the statesman who passed those Acts. Thirty-six years had passed since the Act of 1870 became law, but it had not become a precedent for English legislation, although these Acts might become precedents in regard to England, if it turned out that the circumstances were such as required such a course.
  LORD R. CECILinquired if the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was anything special about town tenants in Ireland which was not common to England?
  MR. BRYCEreplied in the affirmative, and said he had already explained it. The House would, however, pardon him if he did not in every speech repeat what he had said in his previous utterances.

  639
  The arguments which they were now listening to were advanced over and over again in 1870, in 1881, in 1887, and in 1891 when the land question was under consideration. It was said then, as it was said now, "If you pass this for Ireland, later on you will have to pass it for England" That argument, seemed to appeal especially to the noble Lord, and nowhere was felt more strongly than in the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London who apparently did not desire to see any state of society or any other relation existing between people than those with which he was familiar in the City. But Ireland was not London, and they were now legislating for Ireland and trying to meet the cases which it was necessary to deal with in that country. They were not going to be deterred from doing so because some hon. Gentleman got up and said, "If you apply this to Ireland it must in the end be extended to England."
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but he only wanted to quote one passage from his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he was willing to give way to the hon. Baronet for the purpose of enabling him to make any explanation, but he could not do so in order to enable the hon. Baronet to inaugurate a new debate.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid all he wished to say was that in that speech the right hon. Gentleman stated that he wished to see this legislation extended to England.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he had stated so in regard to one particular provision, but the point which the hon. Baronet had taken was quite irrelevant to the argument they were now conducting. He thought there were some very excellent provisions in the Bill which might be extended to England, but he should not support them merely because they were applied to Ireland, and he should only do so in case he thought there was good reason for applying them to England. The noble Lord the Member for Maryle-
  640
  bone seemed to think that the compensation to be awarded would be given in regard to improvements made by the predecessor in title of the tenants, but that was not the plan of the Bill, because nothing was to be given as compensation for improvements except such improvements as added to the letting value of the holding. That was the basis on which the compensation would be fixed, and when the noble Lord suggested a case in which he would obtain compensation without having spent any money he must point out to him that in order to obtain possession of a house he must have paid an increased sum because of the increased value which the improvement gave to the house.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he expressly stated that he did not pay an increased sum of money; that was the whole point of his argument.
  MR. BRYCEreplied that it stood to common sense that if one was buying a house, and the improvements had made it more valuable, one would pay more in consequence of those improvements. If more was paid for the house it was only fair that compensation should be paid, it being always understood that the landlord did not pay for anything which did not increase the letting value of the house. That was a very solid reason for resisting an Amendment which would lead to gross injustice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman began his speech with a very eloquent tribute to the virtues of the Irish Land legislation of 1870 and 1881. In doing so the right hon. Gentleman opened a wide field of controversy—wider than he would like if it were discussed at length, having regard to the arrangement arrived at at Question time. He was not going to discuss the question whether the land legislation of 1870 or 1881 was or was not good for the Irish people, nor was he going to expose the patent fallacy that because the Irish tenantry were better off now than they were thirty years ago that could be regarded as an ample justification of the Acts of 1870 and 1881, which had had to be supplemented by the Land Purchase Acts. When the right hon.

  641
  Gentleman paid an eloquent tribute to the authors of the Act of 1870 he wondered if he reflected upon the horror which would have been in Mr. Gladstone's mind if he could have foreseen that the legislation which he regarded as special legislation for Irish agricultural land was going to be extended to Irish urban property. Mr. Gladstone would have been the first to say that there was no fundamental difference between Irish and British town tenants. If the Chief Secretary would refresh his mind by referring to the speeches of Mr. Gladstone on the Irish land question he would see that Mr. Gladstone explicitly stated that the legislation he was passing for Ireland was utterly unsuited for English or Scottish holdings, and ho denounced it in principle though he excused it in the particular state of things which he found in Ireland. If Mr. Gladstone were here now he would be filled with horror at taking the precedent of his Act of 1870 and applying it to town tenants. Mr. Gladstone would say that the first duty of a Government bringing in this Bill was to show that the condition of the urban tenants was analogous to the conditions of the agricultural tenants and to the fundamental condition of the urban tenants in England and Scotland. That had not been done. The right hon. Gentleman had now referred them to some speech which he said he made yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman might have intended to make such a speech yesterday, but ho never did make it. If he would refer to Hansard or if he would send for a copy of The Times now he would agree that that speech was never made. The right hon. Gentleman had never attempted to grapple with the main principle. He had never attempted to show any fundamental difference between a tenant in Merrion-square and a tenant in Grosvenor-square or a shopkeeper in Belfast and a shopkeeper in Bond street. Had the right hon. Gentleman sent for a copy of The Times?
  MR. BRYCE: No; I have not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. is well advised.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman refers me to The Times. But I distinctly remember referring to the fact that there were habits of usage with
  642
  regard to houses in Ireland which were not analogous to England.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not deny the right hon. Gentleman might have let fall a phrase of that kind, but did he give a catalogue of the habits of usage in Ireland? If the right hon. Gentleman was asked the essential distinctions between agricultural holdings in Ireland and in England he would have no hesitation in making a catalogue. The agricultural tenant in Ireland made all the improvements, he fenced the land, he drained it, he built the walls, and, in fact, did the whole thing. In England and Scotland all these conditions were different, and therefore different land legislation was required in Ireland. But could the right hon. Gentleman say in what way the system of the urban holdings in Ireland differed from that of England. As regarded town tenants, not one single peculiarity had been pointed out to differentiate the case of an inhabitant of London from an inhabitant of Dublin, a resident in Belfast from a resident in Manchester. Was it not folly, then, for him to claim that yesterday he made a speech explaining why this Bill was appropriate to Ireland, and that there was good ground for saying it would not be extended to England?
  MR. BRYCE: I have never said anything about its being extended to England except what I said just now.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was just what ho was commenting upon. The right hon. Gentleman had just said he had given the House reasons why this legislation was justified in the case of Irish tenants, and therefore there was no occasion for anticipating that it would be extended to England.
  MR. BRYCE: I never said that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the House was asked to legislate now for Ireland, and it was said there was some explicit difference between Irish town tenants and English town tenants. When asked to name one single point of difference the right hon. Gentleman could not do so. The vice of this first clause was that it dealt with the past and the future in the same words. It dealt with the tenants who had been going on for many

  643
  years and the tenants who would begin after this law came into force. Under this clause how were they to discover what improvements were done some eighty years ago? There was no record kept of the state of a house eighty years ago, and a landlord, although he knew a wrong claim was being made, would have no information to controvert it. In going back to a shadowy and indefinite past, with regard to which no authentic information could be forthcoming, the Government were certain of causing many injustices and much unnecessary litigation by their somewhat reckless method of legislation.
  MR. MOONEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman would not have troubled the House with the speech to which they had just listened if he had consulted the right hon. Member for South Dublin. He knew that the Member for South Dublin was not in the habit of consulting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City before he made speeches, especially speeches on Irish affairs. But still the right hon. Gentleman would have had the benefit of the advice of his late colleague, and he would not have stated that he looked with horror upon this Bill not because it was wrong, but because it contained the germ of something that might hereafter be extended to England. Had the right hon. Gentleman consulted the right hon. Member for South Dublin he might have been referred to a speech made in January last in Dublin where this was a burning question. The right hon. Member for South Dublin on that occasion took up a very different attitude from that which he had now adopted. He was then defending his action in not voting for a similar Bill last year, and he defended himself by suggesting that the Bill was brought in so late in the session that he could not see his way to ask the Government to star it. But the right hon. Gentleman went further, and said—
  "We want this in England quite as much as you want it in Ireland. The case is just as strong in England as in Ireland;
  and he went on to say—
  "I have got a house which I hold from a great landlord and I have spent money on the house and I should like to get compensation, therefore the whole of my spirit is in favour of the Bill."
  644
  The right hon. Gentleman went even further and said he did not vote for the Bill last year because it did not extend to England.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that upon the occasion in question he was referring to the action he had taken in this House when Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was practically quoting the speech he made when Chief Secretary, and he was pointing out the reason for the action he took.
  MR. MOONEYsaid the only difference between this Bill and that which the right hon. Gentleman was referring to was that compensation for disturbance was not in this Bill.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid all he was complaining of was the statement that the language he used was different from that which he had used in this House. The language was the same.
  MR. MOONEYcontended that the language was completely different. The right hon. Gentleman said he objected to compensation for disturbance. That question was not now before the House. The question now before the House was compensation for improvements and the retrospective action of the Bill. How was it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the language he had used in his speech at Kingstown, and that which he had used in this House were the same? Here he had attacked the compensation clause, and more especially the retrospective portion of it. In Kingstown he gave as his reason for voting against the Bill, the lateness of the session, and the impossibility of getting the Government to star the measure. He was then clearly in favour of retrospection, or else what did he mean by saying—
  "I have spent money on that house and I should like to get this compensation, and therefore the whole of my spirit is in favour of the principle of the Bill."
  To make sure that his attitude on the matter was perfectly plain the right hon. Gentleman made a long speech in which he said that it was a session when it was absolutely impossible that the Bill could pass into law unless it had the support of the Government, and if he had given

  645
  his approval as a member of the Government to the Second Reading it would not only have involved his approval of its general principle but, as a matter of general procedure, that he should have done his best to get it starred by the Government; he knew that was impossible because it was too late in the session. The only reason that the right hon. Gentleman held out to his constituents in Dublin was that it was too late in the session for the Government to make a Government Bill of the very measure which the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition were now opposing in such an obstructionist manner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the hon. Gentleman was in order.
  MR. SPEAKERthought discussion had got rather far from the subject, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would now approach the Amendment.
  MR. MOONEYsaid of course he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, but if he had seemed to be irrelevant, it was only because he had been led to follow the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, and it seemed to him a most illogical proceeding that they should have one Member on the Front Bench supporting this Bill and approving of its principles when it was not before the House and opposing it when it came before the House, and another saying that he and his Party looked upon the Bill with horror.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had appeared to misunderstand the point taken up by his hon. friend the Member for Marylebone. He would give a concrete case to show the unfairness of this clause. Assuming a person bought a house in London with a ninety-nine years lease, of which only seven years remained to run, this Bill would force the landlord at the end of those seven years to pay to the tenant the whole value of any improvements which added to the letting value of the premises. That proposition merely required to be stated to show there was a gross omission in the section. It was sought to put off the argument
  646
  by saying that it did not apply to Ireland. Labour Members, however, met this much more straightly yesterday and said boldly that this was a precedent which should be made to apply to England as well as to Ireland. The Chief Secretary tried to get out of that, and the Attorney-General for Ireland had declared that there was a great difference between English tenancies and Irish tenancies, because in Ireland people very frequently built houses on the land which they leased. But practically the whole of the houses in the West End of London were built upon those terms.
  MR. CHERRY: What I said on the Second Reading was that in Ireland the houses were frequently built by persons who had only a tenancy from year to year.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid the whole wrong and injustice of this clause was the introduction of its retrospective provision. On the Second Reading of the Bill no one on the Opposition side had any idea that the Government were going to support retrospective legislation in respect of compensation for tenants' improvements. If they were to have retrospection, however, it ought to be limited to the tenant out of whose pocket the improvements had come.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and a division taken upon the Amendment standing in his name, which raised the entire question.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL*MR. JAMES CAMPBELL moved an Amendment to confine the operation of the clause to improvements made "subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act." He said the Amendment raised in a concise and acute form the question they had been discussing for some time, and in a more advantageous way than the Amendment just disposed of, because if his Amendment were carried it would get rid of all the difficulties that were sought to be removed by the previous Amendment. The Bill as it stood was retrospective in two ways;

  647
  it applied to existing contracts, and also to improvements under those contracts made before the date of the passing of the Act. The House had come to a conclusion upon the question of existing contracts, but there was involved in the second question dealt with by his Amendment a principle which was just as important, and that was whether they were going to the extreme length of extending the application of the Bill to improvements made under existing contracts prior to the date of the passing of the Act. He should like to hear some defence of that principle, because it was prima facie unjust, and required to be defended. The promoters of this Bill had in the clearest way shown in subsequent sections that they themselves felt the unfairness and injustice of it, because they had made elaborate arrangements in regard to future improvements which compelled the tenantto serve notice on his landlord of his intention to make such improvements. Therefore the landlord would get full notice when any improvement was to be made which might ultimately saddle him with the liability to pay money. The Bill also provided means by which the landlord could protect himself, and enabled him to say to the tenant, "That improvement is not a suitable one, it will damage my property, and so I object to it." Under those circumstances if a tenant persisted in making improvements, the landlord could bring him before the Court and have the matter settled. Upon what principle were they going to apply this Bill to improvements made many years ago when the landlord had no protection? There was protection in regard to future improvements, under which the landlord could say to his tenant, "I will carry out this improvement myself on my own lines, and in a way which is convenient and consistent with the rest of my property" He had no such right in regard to improvements made before the passing of this Act, and he got no notice of improvements which had been made up to the present. On what principle of fair play, therefore, could anyone defend the retrospective application of the Bill to improvements made prior to the date of the Act? He was not now attacking the application of the Bill to
  648
  existing contracts, but he wanted to know upon what principle of fair play they proposed to go one step further and apply the Act retrospectively to past improvements made under such contracts of tenancy, and made with the full knowledge on both sides of the existing state of the law? The tenant knew that he could only look to the duration of his lease to get compensation for his outlay, and therefore the landlord took no step to prevent his tenant making the outlay, because he knew he was protected under his lease. "Why, under those circumstances, should the landlord be deprived of that protection by retrospective legislation.? Why was the House to be asked to extend this unjust principle to such a case? If this Bill was to apply to improvements made prior to the date of the passing of the Act there was no limit to it, and a man might claim for an improvement made 100 years ago. In that case what position would the successor in title of the landlord be in? A house built 100 years ago might have been put up by a tenant with money provided by his landlord under some bargain by which the tenant got a valuable consideration for it. The rights of the parties were then regulated by a different law, and why in the name of fair play and common justice was that position to be altered now to the detriment of one party and to the benefit of the other? He was in favour of the principle of compensation to the tenant for improvements, and. speaking generally, he believed that Irish Unionist members were practically unanimous that as regarded future improvements a tenant on quitting his holding should get compensation in so far as they had increased the letting value of the holding. That was a just principle, but it did not justify them in extending the same principle to improvements made under a totally different state of the law. He appealed to the Attorney-General to consider this matter. They had already settled the question of the retrospective application of the Bill to existing contracts of tenancy. That, to some extent, was unjust, but it was not so grossly unjust as the present proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept this Amendment, at any rate he should

  649
  give them some reason consistent with common sense and the elementary principles of honesty and fair play between man and man for applying the principle to contracts made between A and B, when the state of the law was that B knew he had no right to be paid for improvements and A knew he was under no liability to pay for them. That was a cardinal point in this Bill. Those matters did not affect the principle of the Bill so far as the compensation for improvements were concerned. That principle they were in favour of when applied fairly, but they were not in favour of utilising that principle for confiscating another man's property and handing it over to the person who made the expenditure knowing what the law was, and that the improvements he made would revert to his landlord. He strongly appealed to the Government to reconsider this matter. He did not believe that if a proposal was made that English town tenants should be paid for past improvements at the expense of their landlord that hon. Members opposite would be prepared to support it. If they would not support such a principle for this country, upon what ground of fair play could they apply it to Ireland? With regard to the analogy of the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, the people dealt with under those Acts were the small farmers of Ireland, many of whom had not the advantage of education, but had many disadvantages which placed them in an unfair position in competition with their landlords. This Bill embraced the professional men, such as barristers, solicitors, doctors, bankers, wealthy merchants, and traders, and all these people included would be able to get, at the expense of their landlords, payment for improvements made prior to the date of the passing of the Act. He would like to know why such a privilege was to be conferred on those tenants at the expense of their landlords? This portion of the measure was not germane to the Bill or vital to its principle. If they overloaded the Bill with this retrospective application, they would brand it with a dishonest principle on the face of it, and make it a measure which directly confiscated another man's property and transferred it to a third party who had no right to it. Nobody in Ireland had
  650
  asked for the retrospective application of the Bill.
  MR. FLAVIN: Some of the Trinity College tenants want it.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that many Irish tenants wanted protection for improvements made in their holdings, but he had never known any representative class in Ireland who demanded that the Bill should be retrospective. | [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh."] Such a demand might exist, but he was not aware of it. He knew that if a man by an Act of Parliament could get hold of another man's property, and have it transferred to him, he would acquiesce in the situation, but to say that there had been any demand in Ireland for legislation which would have a retrospective effect and transfer to tenants the money which they had expended upon improvements in the past was a slander upon his countrymen. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry, his right hon. friend beside him had never said out of this House anything he was not prepared to repeat in the House itself. But that was a mere personal issue, and he passed from it. If he could not reach the conscience of his right hon. friend opposite, he appealed to the sound sense and good heart of English Members to take the trouble to read the clause. If they had done him the favour of listening to the point he was making, and if they were satisfied he was right that the effect of the Bill in its present shape would be to apply not merely to future contracts, but to all improvements made under existing contracts, no matter how many years ago, he believed their sense of fair play and of what was just would induce them to support the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'title' to insert the words 'subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. CHERRYsaid Members on the Ministerial side of the House were very much pleased to hear the right

  651
  hon. Gentleman say that he was in favour of the principle of compensation for improvements both for agricultural and non-agricultural tenants. Nobody who listened to him in the debates yesterday and again to-day would have supposed that he was in favour of any such principle. If his memory served him right, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking yesterday on the Motion for the adjournment of the consideration of the Bill, used the words "highway robbery" not only in regard to the proposal to make this clause retrospective, but to the Bill generally.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the retrospective clause and the proposal to give compensation for disturbance.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of false pretences. It was in the recollection of the House what took place on the Second Reading when the retrospective clause was in the Bill as at present. Speaking for the Government he distinctly stated that they were in favour of the whole clause as to compensation for improvements.
  MR. RAWLINSON: A distinct question was asked of the Government, after the Second Reading in the debate on whether the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law or to the Standing Committee on Trade. The question was whether the Government were in favour of the retrospective action of the clause. The question was not answered, and finally the Speaker ruled that the question could not be pressed, and that it could be discussed in Committee.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was speaking of what took place on the Second Reading. The Chief Secretary, who followed him, adopted everything he said. After all that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin, who was in his place and heard the whole discussion, and saw the Bill with the retrospective clause in it, did not vote against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was apparently rather in favour of this highway robbery, If there were any highway robbery it was the act of the landlord who took the
  652
  improvements made by the tenant and gave nothing for them. In some cases in Ireland at the present moment good landlords would consider that unjust, but there were other landlords who took advantage of the law and got possession of the buildings the tenants had put up, though in doing so they were doing morally a very wrong thing, and he hoped that when the Bill pissed that would be an illegal act. He could state many reasons in favour of this clause.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give one good reason.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the Land Act of 1870 was retrospective. It applied to improvements made before the Act was passed. The House had determined this matter thirty-six years ago in legislation on the subject of compensation for improvements. That legislation was applied to England by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883. That Act also was retrospective. Could anyone suggest any difference between town tenants and country tenants? In nine cases out of ten where compensation for improvements was claimed and awarded in Ireland under the Act of 1870 the claim was in respect of buildings, and generally for dwelling houses. What was the difference between a building on an agricultural holding and one on a non-agricultural holding? There was no reason why a man who improved an agricultural holding should be compensated, and one who improved a town holding should not. There was no difference in principle that he could ascertain. He could not see why in regard to compensation for improvements there should be any difference between a building put up on a farm and a building put up in a town or on the roadside. His right hon. friend had said that the Acts of 1880 and 1887 only affected small tenants.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I said that the bulk of the persons affected were small farmers.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the bulk of the people who would be affected by this Bill were small householders. The question was, "Whose money has been spent?"

  653
  If the tenants' money had been spent it was just and reasonable that the landlord should pay for what he had done. The right hon. Gentleman said that the landlord should not be expected to pay for an old improvement. If an old improvement had deteriorated in value the landlord would only be asked to pay the diminished value, and if the improvement had lost all its value the landlord would not be expected to pay anything. The landlord would only be asked to pay the value at the time he got possession. The Government wished to keep the Bill within the limits of justice and fair play. They attempted no highway robbery. On the contrary, they wanted to prevent highway robbery, and they believed that if the Bill passed they would be able to prevent highway robbery with Respect to past and future improvements.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not given one good reason for the clause.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGthought all who had heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have been struck by the way in which he used the word "holding." They were all at one with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the spirit of the clause where it referred to the future. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had so far made a very good defence of the retrospective part of the clause. It seemed to him that the clause contained two distinct issues, and the right hon. Gentleman had treated them together, under what he called a "holding." On that point they required some elucidation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. He understood that the object of this Bill, in the first instance, was to apply it more to the villages and small towns of Ireland than to large centres of population like Dublin and Belfast. But in approaching the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman they were faced constantly with the fact that in the small towns and villages the shops and houses were owned by the same man who owned the land round about. They on the Opposition side of the House were united in the idea that where, in a small town or village
  654
  or at a cross-road, a landlord let a small piece of ground to a tenant who built a shop upon it and improved the ground out of all recognition, the tenant at the end of his tenancy should receive just compensation for his improvements. But it was a different thing to make the clause retrospective when they came to deal with large centres of population like Dublin and Belfast. There they were face to face with different conditions, different tenures, and different principles. In these large cities there were a very large number of streets in which the ground and the houses were let and sublet; and he believed that as a rule, ladies chiefly invested their money in those houses. If this clause were made retrospective it would bear very hardly upon them. How could such ladies who had been deriving an income of £40 or £50 from such houses, pay compensation amounting to £150 or £250 for improvements which they never expected or desired should be made? He was quite sure that nobody in Ireland wished that this clause should be made retrospective unless they thought that they could make something out of it. This was more or less a lawyer's Bill; but mere laymen, who took a real interest in the welfare of the country and wanted to see fairplay all round, were particularly desirous that the clause should not be made retrospective.
  MR. T. HART-DAVIESsaid that he called this Bill a remedial measure. It was intended to remedy what was recognised as an unjust state of things in Ireland at the present moment. It was said that landlords and tenants were grown men, understanding what their rights and duties were; but his contention was that they were not on terms of equality and never had been. There never could be terms of equality between the man who held the monopoly of the land and the man who wanted to make use of it; and so the landlord had always been able to put what conditions he liked on the tenant. [OPPOSITION cries of "Nonsense."] He did not think that that argument was nonsense. The monopolists' position was this: that, under the present state of things, at the end of a tenancy the tenant was obliged to hand over to the landlord

  655
  all the improvements that he had made on his holding without compensation. That, in his opinion, was unjust, and this remedial Act was intended to give the tenant compensation for the additional value he had given to the landlord's property. He confessed that he would like to see the provisions of this Bill extended to England. He held that if it was unjust not to give compensation for improvements in the future, it was equally unjust that it should not apply to improvements made in the past.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given reasons for this legislation which the Government had hitherto withheld. The hon. Gentleman had said that its retrospective character was justified because landlords and tenants, although grown men, could not enter into contracts on equal terms. But the tendency of all such ex post facto legislation would be to increase the inability of grown-up men to enter into contracts as grown men should. Even if every word which the hon. Member had said were true, he could not accept the view that if tenants were incapable of making bargains with their landlords it was necessary to have this ex post facto legislation. It might, of course, be said that the people of this country were so little able to take care of themselves and so little possessed of manly worth that the State should take care that they did not make contracts to their own detriment. He did not say that that would be a good law, but, at all events, it would be advocated upon an intelligible basis, which this Bill was not. This measure would involve an immense change, and it was one which could only be brought forward in the Legislature of the country. Such legislation was prohibited under the constitution of every country which enjoyed a rigid constitution. It was part of the irony of fate that the measure was associated with the name of the Chief Secretary, because it was the right hon. Gentleman's fate to have written a monumental work called The American Commonwealth. In that book the right hon. Gentleman explained that it was laid down by the American constitution that no state should pass any ex post facto law, or any law impairing the validity of
  656
  contracts, and that provision the right. hon. Gentleman said was so salutary that the American people had not seen any reason to change their minds upon the point. They believed, the right hon. Gentleman further said, that the constitution of their country did something not only to obtain justice between man and man, but to secure the manhood of the nation. He thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland was also of the same opinion when he wrote that book. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman stated some of the objections to a rigid constitution, but he also found some merits in the rigidity of the American constitution, because he said it rendered service in forming the mind and temper of the people and trained them to habits of legality. In that House, however, they had the Attorney-General for Ireland explaining that a man who held his property by process of law was comparable to a highway robber, and that the habits of their countrymen were to be so trained that they might break past contracts. Such a policy would, he thought, only train the people in habits of illegality, tempered by expensive litigation.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHwas sorry that the discussion on this clause had been so prolonged, because they were all agreed upon the policy, but differed upon the question of whether it should or should not be retrospective. The Attorney-General for Ireland had indulged in violent invective against the landlords, but what he would like to ask was whether a tenant when he built a house on the property of the landlord was compelled to do so. The retrospective character of the Bill would create great injustice in the case of the wealthy landlord, a fact which might not appeal to hon. Members. He would therefore appeal to them on the ground that it would injure the poor landlord, Let them take the position of a poor landlord who had a wealthy tenant. It was possible that the wealthy tenant might so improve—if it could be called improving—the dwelling house belonging to the poor landlord, that if it was in a poor locality it would be impossible in future for the landlord to let it, and yet he would be called upon to

  657
  pay for that improvement, and the landlord would find that the much improved dwelling left on his hands was in the nature of a white elephant. What was he to do in such a case? They had heard a great deal about the injustices which the Bill would remedy, but there were several injustices which the Bill created. They were, however, very anxious to know from the right hon. Gentleman what were the injustices which this Bill would remedy. It certainly was the practice of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to transfer property belonging to A to B, but he sincerely hoped that that was not the policy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If the Bill were made retrospective it would be a direct interference with contracts between man and man, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was paying a poor tribute to the intellect of his countrymen if he thought that the tenants had been deluded by the landlords into making improvements on their property. He could only urge the right hon. Gentleman to give them some adequate reason, or indeed any reason, why this Bill should have retrospective application.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he only interposed for a moment in consequence of the challenge of the Attorney-General for Ireland. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been longer in the House he would find that it did not conduce to the rapid or smooth passage of legislation that Ministers should by their language offer strong inducements to opposition on the part of those who were opposed to them. If it had not been for the happier arrangement made earlier in the evening he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have had cause to regret the animadversions which he had made upon those who sat on the Opposition side of the House and especially upon the Ulster Members. His right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University had stated quite accurately the position of Irish Unionists in regard to this question, and it was a very strong order for the Attorney-General to suggest across the floor of the House that they were endeavouring to defeat the Bill because they were trying to carry Amendments which they indicated during Second Reading debate.
  MR. CHERRYstated that all he had said was that, although hon. Members opposite had expressed themselves in favour of the principle of the Bill, no one who had listened to the debate would have suspected it.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that was exactly the statement that he was referring to, this point being that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make such statements did not conduce to the rapid passing of the measure, as it only led to replies from their side of the House. He repeated his view that compensation for improvements to town tenants was a desirable and necessary reform of the law, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was something new for Unionists to express themselves in favour of compensation, they having been responsible for a measure which gave agricultural tenants compensation for unexhausted improvements it was a little late in the day to say that they had for the first time expressed their sympathy with the principle.
  MR. CHERRY: I never said anything of the kind.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was, however, an entirely different thing to apply the Bill to existing contracts made before the psssing of the Act. That was an invasion of a serious principle, and the Bill ought not to apply to improvements made before it passed. It was conceded that it was to apply to existing contracts, but they held very strongly that it was a mere matter of justice to exclude those improvements which were executed before the Act passed, and which neither landlord nor tenant contemplated any Act would apply to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcould not agree that there was a monopoly in house property as there was in a sense in land because the quantity was limited. In Ireland he believed that at the present time a certain number of houses were vacant. He did not think that any argument that he used would affect the right hon. Gentleman, but surely the arguments of his own leaders would have some effect upon him. On 24th February

  659
  1876, long after the legislation of 1871, the present Secretary of State for India on the introduction of the Tenancy of Town Houses (Ireland) Bill said that houses were not like land, because they were not limited or fixed in number. In other words, house accommodation, to use the words of the hated political economist, was made simply to supply the demand. Those were the words of one of the most eminent men who ever sat on the Treasury Bench, and they completely answered the argument of the only hon. Member who had risen from the Government side of the House to support the Bill. The Attorney-General had reiterated the old arguments that the Act of 1870 was retrospective, that there was no difference between an agricultural holding and a town holding, and that he did not see that it made any difference whether a man built a farm house or a town residence. Yet Mr. Gladstone, who passed the Land Acts of 1870 and 1880, and who therefore must have known the reason for introducing those measures, was opposed to the alteration of the tenure of town houses. The Secretary of State for India at that time gave the answer as to the difference between town and agricultural holdings which the Opposition had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain. All the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was that the Act of 1870 was a good Act and that it ought to have applied to town holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India said—
  "The manifest reason why contracts not to claim for improvements were declared null and void under the Act of 1870 was because the tenant was supposed and justly supposed to have no freedom. If that was true with regard to agricultural holdings, it was only true in a modified degree of houses in the town, because if a man was turned out of a house in a town he would have a fair chance of getting another house. He was told that in Dublin there were too many houses."
  Now that he had shown what right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench thought, and what those who were actually interested in the Acts of 1870 and 1880 felt in regard to this matter, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would either accept this Amendment or give some good reason why he differed from the opinions which he had quoted to the House.
  MR. BRYCEsaid in this House they were accustomed to spend a great deal of time in referring to what hon. Members and former Members had said in past times, and he did not believe that any assembly ever embarked on a more unfruitful course. He had never known anyone to be converted by what some one else had said many years before. Even the words of Mr. Gladstone, spoken many years ago, should not be taken as the highest authority, because it must be recollected that he, like all great men, sometimes changed his opinions. He regretted that the hon. Baronet should have devoted so much time to these citations. He had not heard a single argument advanced upon this Amendment that had not been advanced at a previous stage. The House had practically discussed the whole question of retrospection upon the Motion to leave out the clause, yet that argument had been persisted in, and nearly every speaker upon this Amendment had returned to it. The noble Lord the Member for Maidstone asked what ground of justice there was in this Bill, and he (Mr. Bryce) had endeavoured to explain that the ground of justice was that, the tenant having increased the value of the landlord's property, it was only fair that the landlord should pay for it, but that he should not be obliged to pay more than the amount he was proved to be benefited, and that amount would be settled by the amount that he could charge for the holding. He could only say, in reply to the statement that he had made an attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, that he had no such intention. But he certainly believed that allusions to what was said in former years did not carry this question much further. Re hoped the Louse would now come to a decision upon the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid it was quite true to say that if any new light was thrown upon a question it was the duty of a man to change his opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman had thrown no new light whatever upon this question. What new light had been thrown on the condition of town tenancies since 1886? The town tenancies of Ireland and of England were in the same

  661
  position to-day as they were ten or even fifty years ago. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what were the circumstances which had altered the condition of town tenancies. The right hon. Gentleman said they had altered, but he could not say how. The only hon. Member who had spoken in support of this Bill had made an extraordinary defence. He had expressed the opinion that whatever was fair as regarded the future must be fair as regarded the past; but had he considered the subject for a moment he would have seen that that was not a true inference. It was proposed to enact in the future a Provision that had not been enforceable in the past. It had not been competent for a tenant in the past to claim compensation for improvements. One of the strongest arguments against the retrospective clause of the Bill was to be found in the fact that the framers of the Bill themselves put into it serious limitations with regard to obtaining compensation for improvements made in the future. Past improvements were made by the tenant without any idea of ever obtaining compensation for them, and with the certain knowledge on the part of the landlord that he would not be called upon to pay. That was the broad ground upon which those with whom he sat objected to this retrospective section. He quite agreed that in the main the theory of compensation for improvements which increased the letting value of the holding was a fair theory. But compensation for improvements which were made thirty or fifty years before, under totally different circumstances to those which were set up by this Bill, was neither logical nor just. One of the things which made him a little anxious for the future tenants was that the right hon. Gentleman left out all the great towns of Ireland. He admitted that in the small towns the landlords had a monopoly. There were towns, no doubt, where the landlords had not acted justly from the tenants' point of view, and in so doing had acted to their own detriment. They had put obstructions in the way of the tenants' improving their property, and it was in those towns where the landlords had acted improperly that the tenants had raised this agitation. When they came to deal with the large towns in Ire-
  662
  land, where a monopoly in houses did not exist, the case was different. In Belfast there were, he should think, from 40,000 to 50,000 houses, and he knew as a fact that a very considerable number had, for the last few years, been lying idle. In Belfast, therefore, by reason of the fact that the supply of houses was very largely in excess of the demand, not only was there no necessity for the retrospective part of the Bill, but the other parts also were not required.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentleman was anticipating an Amendment of his own to come on later.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Government, in adopting this Bill, were not giving proper weight to the case of the larger towns. A number of the smaller towns, no doubt, needed the provisions of the Bill, but they were not needed in the larger towns, and would produce a considerable amount of unnecessary litigation and friction between landlords and tenants. If one landlord would not give proper terms the tenant could go to another, and natural competition would ensure him better terms. The Bill was never intended to apply to such cases as those. It was called into being by reason of the unfair conditions which prevailed in a number of small country towns in Ireland, and to pass the Bill as it stood would do an immense amount of harm in the large towns. Whether it actually caused loss to the landlords or not, it was bound to set up a state of friction between landlord and tenant, creating a bad feeling between them which had not hitherto existed. The arguments against making the Bill retrospective were mostly arguments of principle. He hoped, however, that hon. Members opposite would realise what would happen if such a Bill were to pass for England to-morrow. In the English Bill of last session there was a provision that nothing in the Bill should apply to improvements made before the passing of the Act. He hoped the hon. Members whose names were on the back of that Bill would take the action they thought a year ago was the proper course in this matter. He trusted that hon. Members would for once in a way exercise their judgment,

  663
  and not be led by the nose by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and his two lieutenants. He believed the Bill, it passed in its present form, would do infinitely more harm than good. It would discourage the erection of small houses, and tend to set up a monopoly in houses which
  would be infinitely worse for the tenants than their present position.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 329. (Division List No. 420.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rothshcild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bertram, Julius

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Liddell, Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C, W

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cross, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Chance, Frederick William

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Adkins, W. Ryland, D.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clough, William

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Branch, James

  Clynes, J. R.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brigg, John

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bright, J. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J T (Chesh.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

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

  Barker, John

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cox, Harold

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crean, Eugene

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Beale, W. P.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crombie, John William

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Crooks, William

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crossley, William J.

  Bell, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Bennett, E. N.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Delany, William

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Grady, J.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Duffy, William J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley,)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Mara, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. George Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Fancras, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

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

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Radford, G. H.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Field, Alexander

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John K. (Waterford)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richardson, A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Gilhooly, James

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson John H. (Denbighs.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Killop, W,

  Robinson, S.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Grant, Corrie

  Maddison, Frederick

  Runciman, Walter

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gulland, John W.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Massie, J.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hall, Frederick

  Meagher, Michael

  Seddon, J.

  Halpin, J.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hammond, John

  Menzies, Walter

  Shackleton, David James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, E, S.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Snowden, P.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morse, L. L.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murnaghan, George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murphy, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Murray, James

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Myer, Horatio

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Napier, T. B.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hogan, Michael

  Nichols, George

  Summerbell, T.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, William

  666

  667

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Toulmin, George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Ure, Alexander

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

  Vivian, Henry

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Wallace, Robert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Young, Samuel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Walters, John Tudor

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) moved to insert the words "which he shall have paid for on his entry." It was absurd that a man should be expected to pay a tenant for improvements made by that tenant's predecessor, and not paid for by the tenant. Such an Amendment seemed absolutely necessary, otherwise the man who reaped the advantage of the Bill would not be the man who had made the improvements. It seemed to him very unjust that a person should pay compensation to a man who had himself not paid anything for the improvements. He thought the Chief Secretary would realise that the Amendment was reasonable, and he begged to move.
  MR. HICKS BEACHseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'title,' to insert the words 'which he shall have paid for on his entry.'"—(Viscount Helmsley.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. He was rather inclined to think that the hon. Member did not quite realise its effect, for it would deprive of compensation the son of the man who had made the improvements. In the case of a man who had made a valuable improvement and his son became his successor in title, under this Amendment that son could not get any compensation. What difference did it make to the landlord whether the man in possession made the improvements or inherited them? Surely that made no difference to the landlord. The landlord acquired the
  668
  additional value of the property, and the Bill required that he should pay for it.
  SIR E. CARSONadmitted that there was a good deal in what the Attorney-General had said, but his observations were not germane to existing contracts, where claims arose in reference to improvements made before the passing of the Bill. If a man had made improvements upon a holding and proceeded to assign his tenancy, he would assign it to the assignee on the assumption that there was nothing to be paid for the improvements at the expiration of the tenancy. If a man took over a three years tenancy, giving nothing whatever for the assignment, but taking it over at the old rent, was it fair that that tenant should make a claim for improvements made thirty or forty years ago? They were simply conferring on the tenant a free gift for improvements which he had never made. The whole difficulty arose from the fact that the draughtsman had drawn no distinction as regarded two cases which were absolutely different. If the Chief Secretary had been responsible for the drafting of the Bill, he would have seen that some clear distinction was drawn between contracts made before and those made after the passing of the Act. He thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord was necessary in consequence of the way in which the Bill was drawn, and that its acceptance was necessary to prevent injustice.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment would destroy the claim of the tenant altogether in a great many cases where the property passed from one member of a family to another. In a great many cases the tenancy would be purchased as it stood, and the purchaser would give more for it on account of the value added

  669
  to it by the improvements. Under all the circumstances he asked the House not to accept the Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not met the point. The point was in regard to a tenant who came in under the existing system knowing that he would not get compensation from the landlord. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman did not see, or discreetly did not answer, for he did not think there was any answer. He hoped that the Government would at some future stage introduce words to meet the undoubted hardship and injustice which had been pointed out in connection with this clause.
  MR. DILLONsubmitted that there was no case of hardship or injustice in the matter. Every single argument used by the noble Lord had been used against the Land Bill. The Ulster holdings were bought and sold dozens of times under exactly the same circumstances. Houses which were built by one set of tenants were sold to other tenants, but that did not prevent this House from giving to the tenants the full benefit of the improvements which had been made before they bought the houses. The very same argument which was used by the noble Lord against giving compensation to a tenant who had bought a house in a town was used in. 1880 against giving compensation to the tenants in Ulster. It was exactly the same case, and the attempts made by the noble Lord to set up a distinction between a man who built a house in a town or on the roadside and a man who built a house on his little farm in Ireland was in point of equity absurd.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he quite agreed that the Chief Secretary was right in not accepting the Amendment, because it would undoubtedly apply to a case of devolution under a will or to a case of intestacy, or next of kin, or the heir at law as the case might be. But the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the grievance pointed out by his hon. and learned friend regarding the injustice which would necessarily arise as to
  670
  compensation for past improvements in certain oases. The injustice was that a man who had bought the interest under an existing lease three years ago would be able to claim compensation in respect of an improvement which had cost perhaps £1,000. though the man who sold the house to him knew that as the law stood he could get nothing from the landlord anybody else. The assignee in purchasing would not give value in respect of that improvement, because he knew that he would have to give it up at the end of the lease. But under this Bill a man who was lucky enough to make an investment of that kind would get compensation for the increased letting value given to the holding by his predecessor in title. Was it not perfectly plain that that was a case which ought to be guarded against? The analogy quoted by the hon. Member for East Mayo had no application whatever. The Ulster tenants before there was any legislation got full value, by virtue of the custom known as the "Ulster custom." To use that argument as an answer to the injustice which must necessarily arise in the case of some past improvements by town tenants was no answer at all. Under this Bill the purchaser of a house who had not expended a shilling himself on the improvements or given his predecessor a shilling in respect of improvements which he had made, would be entitled to make his landlord pay whatever sum the Court thought represented the improved letting value. That was grossly in just, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give some promise of an Amendment to deal with such exceptional cases. He admitted that this Amendment went too far, but he thought an assurance might be given that an Amendment would be introduced to obviate the injustice which he had indicated.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that what happened under the Land Act of 1880 was a totally different thing from what was proposed under this Bill. The arguments in favour of compensation under the Land Act of 1880 were that the tenants in Ireland were rack-rented, that that had gone on from year to year, and that they had done certain things for the holdings. In the case of a town holding the tenant was not rack-rented, and

  671
  when he made an improvement he never expected to receive anything from the landlord. The tenant had been compensated by holding the land at an inadequate rental, agreed upon when it was understood that no compensation would be paid by the landlord for improvements. Unless this Amend-

  AYES.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool. Walton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor, C.W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Viscount Castlereagh and Sir Frederick Banbury.

  Cross, Alexander

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brace, William

  Clough, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Alden, Percy

  Branch, James

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Brigg, John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bright, J. A.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brodie, H. C

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Cowan, W- H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cox, Harold

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crean, Eugene

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Crombie, John William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crooks, William

  Beale, W. P.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas.

  Crossley, William J.

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cairns, Thomas

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Bell, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Delany, William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dillon, John

  Bertram, Julius

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

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

  Chance, Frederick William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duffy, William J.

  Billson, Alfred

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Boland, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  ment was accepted many landlords would be penalised because they had trusted the Legislature.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves, 83; Noes, 321. (Division List No. 421.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kitson, Rt. Hon Sir James

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lambert, George

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamont, Norman

  Radford, G. H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rees, J. D.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Field, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lundon, W.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, A.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Gilhooly, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

  Ginnell, L.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Robinson, S.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Crae, George

  Rowlands, J.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Killop, W.

  Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)

  Grant, Corrie

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

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maddison, Frederick

  Seddon, J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Shackleton, David James

  Hall, Frederick

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

  Halpin, J.

  Massie, J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hammond, John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meagher, Michael

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Snowden, P.

  Harwood, George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morse, L. L.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murnaghan, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Murphy, John

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, James

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Sullivan, Donal

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Summerbell, T.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Thorne, William

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Toulmin, George

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Mara, James

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shee, James John

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  674

  675

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Winfrey, R.

  Wardle, George J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Young, Samuel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

  White, George (Norfolk,)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University) moved to insert the words "with the consent of the landlord," so that the clause should read "compensation to be paid by the landlord in respect of all improvements on his holding made by him or his predecessors in title with the previous consent of the landlord." He submitted that the Government should accept the spirit, if not the words, of the Amendment, unless they intended not to accept any Amendment at all. The clause dealt with cases where the tenant had made improvements, not only without the consent of the landlord, but against his express wish, and yet at the end of the tenancy the tenant might come down on the poor landlord and demand compensation for the improvements.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)seconded the Amendment, and he expressed the hope that with a verbal alteration it might receive the sanction of the Attorney-General for Ireland. He should propose to add after "landlord" the words "or the sanction of the Court." That would make the clause consistent with the principle of the Bill, and it would remove in some degree the admitted hardship which would be caused to landlords by the operation of the clause. The Amendment would carry out the principle of the Bill, and he urged its acceptance.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'title' to insert the words ' with the consent of the landlord.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. CHERRYsaid it was a little inconvenient on the Report stage for an Amendment to be moved which was not on the Paper.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid his Amendment was on the Paper at a different place.
  MR. CHERRYsaid that might be so, but he was going to say that it was still more inconvenient to consider an Amendment when one was told by the proposer and seconder that it could not be accepted in the form in which it was drawn, and one was called upon to redraft, at a moment's notice, an Amendment proposed by two bon. Members opposite, both of whom he understood were legal luminaries. As regards the Amendment as originally proposed, he did not know whether the hon. and learned Member had noticed that his proposal would contract the whole scope of the Bill with respect to future improvements. He presumed the intention was that the Amendment should apply to both past and future improvements.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid his hon. and learned friend had suggested the insertion of the words "or the sanction of the Court." He himself was dealing with past improvements, but his hon. and learned friend suggested the addition of those words, which would meet the technical point of the Attorney-General for Ireland.
  MR. CHERRYinquired if the hon. and learned Gentleman did not see that that would increase the difficulty. It would make the Amendment far more ludicrous in view of the provisions of Clause 3. Nobody would go to the Court if the landlord consented, and it seemed to him that the two Amendments were mutually destructive. This was another attempt by a side wind to get out of the effects of the clause. Everybody knew that there never was any formal consent given to an improvement. The landlord said nothing and stood by. A landlord living in London, who owned a small village in Ireland, did not think about the improvements his tenants were making and did not care about them. Under the Amendment the onus would lie upon the tenant to show active consent, which no tenant could show. The effect

  677
  would be to exclude every past improvement from the benefit of the Act, and render future improvements impossible. He knew perfectly well from what took place in Ireland that that would be the effect both in the case of an agricultural holding and a non-agricultural holding. Unless there was a clause in the lease requiring it, no landlord ever gave consent, and the tenant, knowing that he was improving his landlord's property, did not take the trouble to inform him what he was doing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he spoke with great diffidence when the question was the exact practice in regard to Ireland, but did the right hon. Gentleman tell him that in the case of the great houses in Dublin and Belfast the tenants holding on long leases were in the habit of making what alterations they pleased, without in any way consulting their landlords?
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was speaking not of tenants of large houses in great cities, but of the tenants of small houses in country towns.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that was one of his complaints about the right hon. Gentleman's promotion of this Bill. He was always thinking of one class, and ignoring all other classes. He would take the case of the tenant holding a lease for ninety years in Dublin or Belfast who spent an amount upon his residence which improved its letting value to the extent of £50 a year. Supposing the character of the quarter of the town in which he lived changed; although the value of the house if it was to continue as a residence would be increased by £50 a year, if it was not used as residential property every penny spent on improvement would be wasted at the end of the lease because it was not necessary for the purpose for which the house would then be used.
  MR. CHERRYsaid that in that case no compensation would be payable.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had consulted his two learned friends near him upon the construction of the Bill, and they were quite clear that under it the tenant would receive compensation for changes which did not add a shilling
  678
  a year to the amount which the landlord would receive under the circumstances he had mentioned. It was greatly to the advantage of big towns that landlords should be free to use their buildings for the purposes best suited to the needs of the town, and if the Government were going to penalise a landlord because he had to change the purpose for which his house was used they would inflict a gross injury not only upon him but upon the neighbourhood.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLdid not think that the right hon. Gentleman in stating that the tenant would not get compensation under the circumstances which his right hon. friend detailed had had regard to the clauses of the Bill He did not suggest that every question that arose in this way was capable of immediate solution, and the right hon. Gentleman might have spoken without considering what was the legal effect of certain passages in the Bill. The case which his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had put was that of a man who had a lease of a very valuable dwelling house, and in the course of his occupation under the lease had spent £2,000 in remodelling the house, with the result that, although he only paid £100 a year himself, at the end of the lease that same house, if let as a dwelling house, would fetch £150. In the ordinary case the outgoing tenant would be entitled to get compensation for the improvements which represented that increased rental value of £50 a year. But supposing the character of the locality changed in such a way that to let the house as a dwelling house would be a very uneconomic and very improper use of it: it might be that the landlord would decide that the building should cease to be used as a dwelling house and use it for some other purpose. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that under those circumstances the outgoing tenant would not be entitled to compensation?
  MR. CHERRYsaid the tenant would not be entitled because he had not increased the letting value.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that in that case the right hon. Gentleman was giving away his whole Bill, because that might be held to be unfair to the

  679
  tenant, as the property might let for considerably more than £150 a year, but not in consequence of the improvements which the tenant had made. It was a conceivable case that the landlord, having got his residence hack, might without reaping anything from the tenants' improvement bona fide change the use of the holding and, applying it to another purpose, obtain an increased letting value which was in no way attributable to the tenant's improvements. Why should the tenant get the benefit of improvements out of which the landlord was not going to get a shilling, and which so far from benefiting his house had injured it, because the improvements were not suited to the new purposes to which the landlord intended to apply it? He thought therefore the right hon. Gentleman would see that he was very rash and hasty in saying in answer to the question of his right hon. friend that in the case he mentioned the tenant would not get any compensation. He contended that under the clause the tenant would get compensation. What were the conditions which entitled the tenant to compensation? First, that the improvement had added to the letting value of the holding. In this ease he would have added £50 a year. The second condition was that the improvements should be suitable, and in this case they were suitable for a dwelling house, and it seemed to him that the tenant would have fulfilled every condition under the Bill to entitle him to compensation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite struck by the injustice of the case said that under those circumstances the tenant would get nothing.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was not struck by the injustice of the case; he was dealing with the language of the Bill.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid it might be thought ludicrous to deprive a tenant of compensation on any such principle as that, but certainly it was not to be found in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider Clause 1 he would see that his answer must be that the tenant would get compensation. He admitted the difficulty of, on the moment, answering a question of the kind, and if the Attorney-General was prepared to admit that in the case put by his right hon. friend the
  680
  tenant would get compensation, he ought to accept the Amendment which would prevent such an unjust result.
  MR. DILLONadmired the dexterity with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Dublin University had seized upon a preposterous point and had spent an inordinate length of time in worrying over it with some plausibility. It was doubtless a great Parliamentary achievement, but he was amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman when an arrangement had been arrived at should be engaged in an exercise, which, however meritorious it might be if they were going to sit and discuss the matter all night, was, under existing circumstances, a sheer waste of of time. His arguments had no significance or weight whatever. It was simply absurd to hear the right hon. Gentleman shedding tears over the prospective miseries of a landlord who had got from his tenant a house which had been improved to the extent of £50 a year in value by the expenditure of the tenant's own money, and who had then found out that, owing to circumstances over which he had not control, it would pay him better to pull the property down and build a much larger place that would fetch a larger rent. The right hon. Gentleman would get no sympathy from him (Mr. Dillon) or those who sat with him.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he supported the Amendment not only on the grounds put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, but on other and more general grounds. The section as it stood seemed to be a most monstrous innovation of the law and custom of the British Isles, a law and custom which had been in operation for many years past. It had also to be borne in mind that this was not a Bill for the relief of poor persons. It was a Bill to enable persons of full age and understanding and wealthy persons to break contracts that they had entered into with others. If the Bill became law a man who had taken a lease of a house in Belfast for seven years, and had covenanted under that lease to do all the repairs, would be able to put up a billiard room and stables and other buildings, without the consent

  681
  of his landlord, and at the end of the seven years the landlord would have to compensate him for the improvements so made. He was surprised that any lawyer on the Government side of the House should countenance such a principle, and he did not believe that any hon. Gentleman sitting on the Ministerial Benches really approved of it. Although the present Bill only applied to Ireland it was—if it were allowed to pass—the thin end of the wedge, and it would very soon be made to apply to England as well. Then let hon. Members think what might happen. An hon. Gentleman might take a house in
  London for the Parliamentary session make improvements in it without the consent of his landlord, and then claim compensation for the improvements so made. If it was to compensate poor tenants for improvements for which it was equitable that they should have compensation he would have nothing to say, but it was to compensate rich people who had no need of compensation. He supported the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 296. (Division List, No. 422.)

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Dillon, John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Duffy, William J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick (Joseph)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richardson, A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ffreneh, Peter

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

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Field, William

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robinson, S.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Crae, George

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Gill, A.H.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Seddon, J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Killop, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

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

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maddison, Frederick

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Massie, J.

  Snowden, P.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Halpin, J.

  Menzies Walter

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hammond, John

  Mooney, J. J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Summerbell, T.

  Harwood, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murphy, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Napier, T. B.

  Thorne, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholls, George

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ure, Alexander

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Verney, F. W.

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

  Vivian, Henry

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

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

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barneley)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  White, Georges (Norfolk)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Malley, William

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Mara, James

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Jenkins, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  684

  685

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Young, Samuel

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'at the date of such claim.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill"—put, and agreed to.
  LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved an Amendment to provide that the improvement for which compensation was to be paid should add to the letting value of the holding "for the purpose for which it is let, or proposed to be let, to any succeeding tenant." The Government, he said, ought to accept this Amendment, because the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland had repeatedly stated that the principle on which the clause rested was that the landlord should not be allowed to take the benefit of what a tenant had done without paying for it. He would instance the case of a property of the poorer class on the outskirts of a town which had been let on a long lease. Subsequently the town had spread, and the landlord proposed on the falling in of the leases to erect buildings of a better class. In such a case no improvement which a tenant might have carried out would be of the slightest value to the landlord. That was a common case. Then there was the case in which the landlord, in order to meet the necessities of the population, decided to convert houses which had gardens round them into an entirely different class of residences. It might be that he would not receive a very much increased rent, possibly not at all, but the neighbourhood was so changed that it was essential from a public, as well as a private, point of view that the nature of the property should be changed and improved, and that the growth of the town should be fostered. In such cases the landlord would not receive a penny in value from any improvement the tenant might have carried out. The Amendment would carry out the principle laid down by the Chief Secretary, namely, that the landlord was not to receive any advantage from the tenant without paying for it. He therefore asked the Government to accept
  686
  the Amendment, not as in any way infringing or attacking the principle of the Bill, but as merely carrying it out and making it logically complete.
  MR. HICKS BEACHseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words 'for the purpose for which it is let, or proposed to be let, to any succeeding tenant.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. CHERRYsaid it appeared to him that if this Amendment meant anything, its effect would be to exclude from compensation altogether tenants who were leaving houses which the landlord did not propose to let again. If the noble Lord's Amendment dealt only with cases where the holding was going to be re-let these words were unnecessary.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he would take the case of a cottage on the edge of a town. If the landlord proposed to turn it into a shop, any improvement executed by the tenant, though it would add to the letting value of the premises as a cottage, might diminish it if let as a shop.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the Amendment was substantially the same as that of ' the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. In his view the tenant in such a case, though it would be a very exceptional one, would not be entitled to compensation, because the improvement, to entitle the tenant to compensation, must add to the letting value.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the point appeared to be much more important than the Attorney-General would have them believe, and it might have a great effect on the development of towns in Ireland where there were small houses on the outskirts. The question was, supposing a landlord wanted to clear away a number of houses for the purpose

  687
  of erecting an entirely different class of houses or business premises, was the tenant entitled to compensation for improvements? Upon this matter his sympathies were not at all with the views of the Attorney-General for Ireland, who had said that in such a case the tenant would not get any compensation for improvements. He would have thought the tenant had just as good a Tight to compensation as in the other case. What ought to be made clear upon this Amendment was whether, if the landlord desired to put the holding to a different purpose, the tenant would be deprived of compensation. That was the view of the Attorney-General, but it was not his view.
  MR. CHERRYsaid that where the landlord let the premises for business purposes at an increased rent and the letting value of the premises had been increased by the tenant's improvements compensation could be claimed.
  SIR E. CARSONasked if the landlord turned a residential cottage into premises for business purposes and had not availed himself of the tenant's improvements, would the tenant be entitled to claim compensation in that case? Surely the Government ought to make their meaning perfectly clear.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERgave as an illustration the case of a tenant who had made considerable improvements in his residential premises, and at the end of his lease the landlord let out the premises as offices and realised a much higher rent than he had previously obtained. The improvements which the tenant had made might not add one single shilling to the letting value of the premises as offices.
  MR. CLANCY: He would get no compensation.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid if that was the case the Government were bound to insert the Amendment to make the point perfectly clear. As the clause now stood he ventured to say that it would lead to extensive litigation, and there was an ambiguity in this clause which the House ought to be ashamed to leave in.
  MR. CLANCYsaid this Amendment was supposed to provide for the case where a residence was turned into a business establishment, and he understood that the landlord was to be enabled to defeat the tenant's claim to compensation for this improvement by announcing his intention to turn the building into a residence again. If the Attorney-General had said that under those circumstances a tenant would not be entitled to compensation, he entirely disagreed with him.
  MR. CHERRY: I said nothing of the kind.
  MR. CLANCYsaid there were streets in Dublin in which houses that were fine residences at the beginning of last century had been saved from ruin by conversion into places of business. The landlord might not have given his written consent to the change, but he had practically consented because he had received rent under the changed conditions, and he would not have received it if he had not consented. The tenant had made, without any sanction of law, structural changes and prevented the houses from being ruined. In the cases where the landlords had been wise enough to consent to these improvements being made, by converting residential premises into business establishments the street in many cases had maintained a rent-paying character. The landlord had gone on receiving rent for these business premises, and by this Amendment the tenant could be robbed of his property if the landlord chose to turn the premises to residential purposes again. He understood that the Attorney-General had said that under those circumstances the tenant would get no compensation for his improvements.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he had never stated anything of the kind, and the hon. Member was under a complete misapprehension. The case which he had put was one in which the letting value of the holding had been increased by the tenant's improvements.
  MR. CLANCYhoped the Chief Secretary would not suggest that they should meet in any way the possible case suggested by the Opposition. A good deal of talk had been indulged in about robbery and confiscation. This was one

  689
  of the cases in which real confiscation would take place.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment would make the subject more difficult and obscure than it was now. In the view of the Government the clause was now plain and simple, but with the Amendment it would be a great deal more difficult to interpret, and for that reason they objected to the Amendment.
  MR. CAVEsaid there might be cases where improvements would add to the letting value of the property for some purposes, and where, nevertheless, it would be a hardship that the landlord should be compelled to pay for them. He put the case of an improvement made by a tenant for his own purpose, and for which purpose the improvement would have value. It might be, however, of no use to the landlord for the purpose for which he desired to use the property after the determination of the tenancy, yet he under the Bill would be required to pay for something which to him had no value. Was the tenant to lose the value of the money spent, or was the landlord to pay for what was of no value to him? That was a point which ought to be dealt with one way or another. The Government, were sitting on the fence.
  MR. BRYCE: We have never had any doubt about it at all.
  MR. CAVE: It is clear now that the landlord has to pay for what is of no value to him.
  MR. BRYCE: No.
  MR. CAVEsaid that was the effect of the clause as now interpreted. It was not a fair proposal, and he thought the only way to meet the case was to accept an Amendment of the kind proposed. If the Bill only applied to future improvements there would be very much less to be said for the Amendment, for in that case the landlord would have the right to object to a proposed improvement on the ground that he desired to use or let the property for some purpose for which the improvement would be of no use, and to bring the matter before the Court. That would be fair enough, or,
  690
  at all events, the landlord would have some remedy, but it would be extremely unfair that he should pay for that which had been already done without his having any opportunity of objecting to it.
  MR. PARKERsaid it appeared to be clear that the tenant, on leaving premises on which he had made improvements with the consent of the landlord, would be entitled to compensation. But supposing that a tenant took a house and found that it did not suit his convenience, and that he carried out certain things which were essential, such as the building of wash-houses, to which he could not get the landlord's consent, was he, as the Amendment proposed, to get no compensation at all if the landlord decided to use the premises for a different purpose and pulled down the wash-house? He submitted that that would be an injustice to the tenant. On that ground he opposed the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid the debate so far had not drawn from the Minister in charge of the Bill that reply in regard to the interpretation of the clause which they would have been glad to hear. If the landlord of property in a poor residential neighbourhood decided to pull down at the earliest possible opportunity, houses which were in an insanitary condition, what would happen under this clause in regard to improvements which had been made by the tenants on the houses which were to be demolished? In the case mentioned by the hon. Member below the gangway the tenant might have expended £200 or £300 in building premises suitable for a laundry. According to the clause, that added to the letting value of the holding, but at the termination of the lease the landlord might decide to change the aspect of the whole district. Was the tenant not to get compensation for the laundry buildings which had added to the letting value of the property if used for that purpose, simply because the landlord decided not to continue the place as a laundry? Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the clause assured compensation to the tenant who had carried on the laundry business, no matter how at the end of the tenancy the landlord might desire to change the character of the place? He thought an

  691
  answer to that question would clear the air.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would tell the hon. Member what he thought the clause meant, and what he thought it ought to mean. The basis of a claim for compensation would be benefit accruing to the landlord, and the mere fact that a landlord did not wish to use the property for a similar purpose did not deprive the tenant of his claim. If the landlord, on the other hand, wanted to improve the property still further and swept away the whole existing improvements in carrying out his plans, the claim for compensation would not attach. But under the Amendment the Courts would be very much perplexed, and it would be better to leave it on the broad basis that the tenant should be compensated for his addition to the landlord's value. He hoped after the long discussion which had taken place the House would now allow the division to take place.
  MR. BOWLESthought that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman it was manifest that if the clause was left as it stood enormous confusion would inevitably arise. The right hon. Gentleman had

  AYES

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

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

  Balcaires, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement, (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walroud, Hon. Lionel

  Cave, George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Bowles.

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cross, Alexander

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Bertram, Julius

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Alden, Percy

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barnes, G. K.

  Billson, Alfred

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brace, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bell, Richard

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Branch, James

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Brigg, John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Bright, J. A.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Brunner, J. L. F. (Lancs., Leigh)

  said that unless the letting value of the holding was increased no compensation would be due. He could not have apprehended the case put from the Opposition Benches during the last hour and a half. If a tenant made an improvement which at the end of the tenancy the landlord in his own interest thought it necessary to sweep away, it could not be said that that improvement had increased the letting value of the holding. That was a question which had not been made clear.
  MR. BRYCE: I have made it clear.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that, as to the remarks of the hon. Member below the gangway, he would like to point out that as a matter of fact the tenant in almost every case would have made his improvement without the slightest expectation of getting any compensation, so that no injustice would be done to the tenant, whereas a very grave injustice would be done to the landlord if he were called upon to pay compensation for an improvement which was of no value to him.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes,. 267. (Division List No. 423.)

  Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Malley, William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Mara, James

  Burnyeat, W. J. B.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Higham John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hogan, Micahel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  Philipps, J. Wynford,(Pembroke

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pollard, Dr.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Clough, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, John (E. Waterford)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cox, Harold

  Joyce, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cremer, William Randal

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Richardson, A.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Robinson, S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lough, Thomas

  Rowlands, J.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lundon, W.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Seddon, J.

  Elibank, Master of

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shackleton, David James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

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

  Essex, R. W.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Crae, George

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Snowden, P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Field, William

  Maddison, Frederick

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Menzies, Walter

  Summerbell, T.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gilhooly, James

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gill, A. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Ginnell, L.

  Murnaghan, George

  Thorne, William

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Murphy, John

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Glover, Thomas

  Murray, James

  Ure, Alexander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Myer, Horatio

  Verney, F. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Vivian, Henry

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Napier, T. B.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nicholls, George

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hall, Frederick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Halpin, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Morthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Watt H. Anderson

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wedgwood Josiah C.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Wedgewood, Josiah C.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Donnell T (Kerry W)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hayden. John Patrick

  O'Grady, J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Hare, Patrick

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  694

  695

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Williams J. (Glamorgan)

  Winfrey, R.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Young, Jamuel

  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL*MR. JAMES CAMPBELL moved an Amendment providing that in no case should the compensation payable exceed the cost of the improvements made. He thought that should commend itself to every hon. Member. [Laughter.] He was convinced that this was not a laughing matter at all, but a matter of substance and justice. What was proposed by the Amendment was to prevent the possibility of a tenant, who had spent, say, the sum of £1,000, coming into court and alleging that the result of his expenditure had been to increase the value of the landlord's property above and beyond the £l,000 which he had expended. It was possible that there would be such a case, and his contention was that the tenant would get ample justice if he got back his £1,000, although there might be circumstances in which the sum he received would be less than that expended, because the improvement might have been ill-advised, the work might not have been well done, or the change might not have improved the letting value of the holding. But if owing, to a change of fashion or to the fluctuating interests of industry and commerce, the particular locality in which he had expended that £1,000 became every day more suitable for buildings of the particular kind in which he had invested his money, with the result that the value did increase by more than the amount spent, surely ample justice was done if on quitting the property the amount which he had expended were regarded as the maximum of compensation payable.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words 'but in no case shall the compensation payable exceed the cost of such improvements."'—(Mr. James Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. BRYCEsaid he could not assent to the Amendment. Assuming that it was, conceivable that a case of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman
  696
  might arise, it was intended that the basis of compensation should be not the amount which the tenant had spent, but the benefit the landlord had received. He did not believe that the tenant would get more than he spent, but he did not wish the House to say that the quantum which he was to be paid should be measured by the sum he had expended. In such a case the Court would not give the unearned increment to the tenant, because the greater popularity of the neighbourhood would not be due to his action, and therefore he would not be entitled to it. They could not assume that the Court would ignore the plain justice of the case. This was a plain matter of reading the Bill and nobody could read it otherwise. He thought it would injure the measure if they were to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt whether the circumstances which were outlined by his right hon. friend could happen, but he knew of a case in Belfast in which they had occurred. The main street in that city at the present time was known as Donegal Street. This particular business thoroughfare in Belfast up to fifteen years ago was mainly composed of dwelling-houses, there being only two or three business houses out of fifty or sixty in the street. It was quite possible by the expenditure of £500 or £1,000 to convert those houses into business premises which would let for two or three times more rent than they would as private dwelling-houses. That was a case which happened in every town — London, Dublin, and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman said that the basis on which the Bill was drafted was the benefit which the landlord received through the improvements of the tenant, so that the tenant might, in such cases as he had mentioned, receive twice or three times the amount of the money he had spent.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that there was nothing in the Bill which would provide

  697
  that changes in the locality should have anything to do with the compensation to be awarded.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had himself told them that the compensation was to be assessed on the increased letting value to the landlord irrespective of what the tenant had paid. The Bill did not state what were to be the limitations of the amount to be awarded to the tenant, and he thought he had shown that there were plenty of cases in which the improvement affected by the tenant in converting a house from a dwelling-house into trading premises might represent a much larger sum than the tenant spent. Therefore it seemed desirable that such cases should be met by an Amendment of the sort proposed.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid that a tenant might during the course of his lease spend £500 on his house, and it might be that when the lease came to an end, owing to changes in the building trade, that the improvement could not be effected for anything like the same cost. Therefore the landlord might have to pay more than the original amount that the tenant spent. Was the tenant to get a net profit for doing nothing whatever in addition to his being refunded the money which he originally spent?
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYwas extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman had refused to accept this Amendment, because by so doing he had thrown a strong light upon the motives of hon. Members who were supporting the Bill. They had been told over and over again that the Bill had been brought in to do an act of justice to tenants, so that when they had spent money on their houses they should receive it back again. The Amendment, which was an exceedingly simple one, suggested that compensation should be restricted to the amount spent, and he thought it ought to be accepted. When it was suggested that the compensation should be limited to the amount of money actually expended on the improvements, hon. Gentleman opposite laughed, and the right hon. Gentleman rose and said he could not accept the Amendment because the unearned increment did not belong to the tenant.
  MR. BRYCE: That was not the answer I gave. I said it was an impossible case, and we could not cumber the Bill by providing for impossible cases.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYpointed out that if such a case did arise it would be no evidence in a Court of law to say that the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had stated in his place in the House of Commons that no such case could arise. What had to be done was to avoid as far as possible unnecessary litigation. Even supposing that everything that had been said in favour of the Bill were true and that these words were superfluous, still it should be the object of the House to incorporate them so that every safeguard might be put in the Bill. It was the desire of every Member of the House to avoid unnecessary litigation, and that being so, there could be no objection to inserting words that went to prove that no possible action could possibly lie for compensation above the amount which the tenant had actually paid for the improvement. It seemed to him that the proposition was an unanswerable one. He was glad to see it was received with laughter by hon. Members opposite and that by the right hon. Gentleman it had been regarded as unnecessary, because that proved that the Bill had been brought in, not as an act of justice, not to do good to anybody, but to satisfy a section of the supporters of the Government who had demanded it.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought they were entitled to a reply from the Government on the very pertinent cases which had been put forward. He had always understood that the House legislated to meet possibilities as well as probabilities. Yet though they had put forward what might be the case they had had no answer. He felt sure the Attorney-General would give them a reply as convincing on this as on previous questions. If the Amendment was not accepted they would be adding to the chances of litigation under the Bill. As far as he could understand, the principle involved, and admitted by the Chief Secretary, was that the tenant should receive compensation for improvements which he had carried out. He meant by that that the tenant should not be the

  699
  loser for money expended on his holding. There was a possibility, however, that he might look upon his improvements as a speculation, and having invested a certain sum of money he might be able to claim a fraction over, or even double the amount he had expended. He sincerely hoped the Attorney-General would answer

  AYES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfre,

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Haddock, George R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Thornton. Perey M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hills, J. W.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cave, George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tellers for the Ayes—

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Viscount Castlereagh and Mr.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  James Mason.

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cross, Alexander

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cameron, Robert

  Field, William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Findlay, Alexander

  Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clough, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gilhooly, James

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Gill, A. H.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ginnell, L.

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Glover, Thomas

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Cox, Harold

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cremer, William Randal

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hall, Frederick

  Benn, W. (T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Halpin, J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hammond, John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Delany, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Dillon, John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Billson, Alfred

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brace, William

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham

  Branch, James

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Elibank, Master of

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh,)

  Essex, R. W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  the questions put to him. He thought they were questions of great importance, certainly deserving a reply.
  Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes, 42; Noes, 274. (Division List No. 424)

  Hogan, Michael

  Murphy, John

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Murray, James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Myer, Horatio

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Napier, T. B.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hudson, Walter

  Nicholls, George

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Nolan, Joseph

  Snowdon, P.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Grady, J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Summerbell, T.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  King, Alfred John (Knustford)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  O'Mara James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Lambert, George

  O'Shee, James John

  Thorne, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Ure, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Verney, F. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Vivian, Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Pollard, Dr.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lough, Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lundon, W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Maclean, Donald

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Watt, H. Anderson

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Crae, George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Kean, John

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Killop, W.

  Richardson, A.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Micking, Major G

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, Charles H (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, J. H (Middlesbrough)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Winfrey, R.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Menzies, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  Young, Samuel

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rose, Charles Day

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis

  Morse, L. L.

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seddon, J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Shackleton, David James

  MR. CHARLES CRAIG MR. CHARLES CRAIG moved to add a proviso to the effect that no claim for compensation shall lie where the improvement is of less value than £20. He said the object of his Amendment was to prevent unnecessary and frivolous litigation. But for the retrospective application of the Bill he would have been willing to make the sum £10 instead of £20. When, however, they considered the enormous amount of litigation which retrospective legislation would inevitably bring about, he thought the House would agree with him that it was necessary to make some
  702
  limit in this respect, and he hoped the Government would admit the justice of the principle. He thought quite sufficient friction would be brought about between landlord and tenant in the larger class of cases without bringing into Court the innumerable cases of what he might call two penny-halfpenny improvements made during the last fifty years.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He said it was patent to everybody in the House that they had to make the best of a bad bargain. He was afraid they would

  703
  have to submit to the Bill, and therefore it was their duty to endeavour to make it as workable as possible. Unless a minimum were put into the Bill as was suggested by the Amendment, the landlord would be open to constant claims upon him for so-called improvements. Unfortunately there existed what were called pettifogging attorneys.
  MR. DILLON: There are no such people in Ireland.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid there might be, but if there were none in Ireland there were some in England, and, as had been already shown, the principle of the Bill, if agreed to in the case of Ireland, must be extended to England, and therefore the first thing they had to do was to prevent any unjust and unnecessary litigation. It was absolutely essential that a minimum should be in the Bill to prevent actions being brought at the instigation of pettifogging solicitors who would be prepared to allow the question of costs to depend on the result of the action. He should have preferred a larger minimum than £20; but he hoped as the Amendment was so modest it would be accepted. For £20 one could not make any improvement likely to add to the letting value of the holding. What one could buy for £20 in bricks and mortar in England at any rate was very little, and he presumed it was not intended that the landlord should pay for decoration.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words, 'provided that no claim for compensation shall lie where the improvement is of a less value than twenty pounds."'—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. DILLONgave a concrete instance to illustrate the argument that a town tenant ought to be compensated for an improvement. Some time ago a friend of his erected a chimney on his house in place of a dilapidated one. He was shortly afterwards evicted, and not being allowed compensation for the chimney, as this Bill would give, being a man endowed with a strong sense of equity, ho pulled down the chimney, and restored
  704
  the house to the landlord in the condition in which it was originally. The result was that the man was brought before the Petty Sessions, but evidently the case was so strong that the magistrates- dismissed it, and the man had the satisfaction of leaving the house in a ruinous condition. A more unjust and monstrous proposal could not be made than that a poor man who expended his money and labour in improving the house in which he lived should not be compensated for the improvements he left behind, while the rich man who laid out a large sum on improvements was to be compensated. The effect of the Amendment was to discriminate against the poor man and in favour of the rich man. There was not a shred of justification for this or any of the other Amendments which had been advocated for hours past. The Amendment was an example of the true spirit and character of the Opposition to the Bill. Anything for the sake of consuming time was good enough for some Opposition Members above the gangway, but he thought the opposition had reached the lowest point when it was proposed to secure to the man of capital a full measure of compensation while denying justice to the poor man who effected his improvements with his humble means, or even by the labour of his own hands.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that the illustration given by the hon. Member for East Mayo would be an ordinary repair which the tenant was bound to carry out under the usual obligations of his tenancy. The object of the Amendment was to prevent a tenant claiming as an improvement something which he had done under the ordinary obligations of his tenancy. The fact that some hon. Members were under the impression that by this Bill a man who simply repaired an injury to the premises caused by wind or severe weather was in a position to claim for that as an improvement which added to the letting value of the premises forcibly demonstrated the necessity for such an Amendment as was now proposed. Was the House going to let loose upon the whole town tenantry of Ireland a flood of litigation when quitting their holdings, for amounts varying from £2 to

  705
  £5 or £6 for expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of repairs? He denied that in Ireland they had any pettifogging attorneys, because the members of the Irish legal profession were a body of gentlemen animated by a desire to protect their clients, and they did it in a legitimate and proper way. Nevertheless, they were human beings, and they must live, and he asked the House not to expose them to the temptation of taking up small and speculative claims on behalf of small and improverished tenants. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thought £20 was too high a limit, but in the interests of the tenants themselves there ought to be some reasonable limit to prevent unnecessary and wasteful litigation. He would be willing to accept a limitation of £10. It would be absurd to put the machinery of the Bill into operation for sums less than £10, because claims for smaller amounts never resulted in any good to anybody except solicitors. He suggested that the Chief Secretary should accept an Amendment limiting the amount to £10, because while it would not do injustice to anybody, it would prevent people prosecuting claims which would be no use to them, and only waste the time of the public Courts in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCEsaid his answer to the Amendment was very simple. An improvement was not the less an improvement because it was small. He did not see any reason why they should leave out of consideration a man who had made improvements to the extent of £20,

  AYES.

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters-

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Haddock, George R.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Cave, George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

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

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  which might mean a great deal to him. It was all very well for the hon. Baronet, who probably lived in marble halls, to support this limitation, but there were many small Irish tenants to whom £7 or £8 meant a great deal. He thought Irishmen would have sense enough to see whether the improvements they had made were such as would enable them to make out a strong case for compensation. He appealed to hon. Members not to occupy time with minor points, but to proceed to graver questions arising upon later clauses.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought the Chief Secretary had passed over what was certainly an important Amendment in a very brief speech in which ho bad scarcely entered into any details. It was obvious that if the Amendment were accepted it would obviate a great deal of litigation. The only voice that had been heard against the Amendment from below the gangway was that of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who had given the experience of a friend of his who was obviously a law-breaker, and was trying to claim compensation which he knew when he took the holding he was not entitled to. He was probably an elector of the hon. Member. He (Viscount Castlereagh) hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 59; Noes,284. (Division List No. 425.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Sir Frederick Banbury.

  Starkey, John R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N. E.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cox, Harold

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Alden, Percy

  Crean, Eugene

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hudson, Walter

  Ambrose, Robert

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Armitage, R.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dillon, John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lambert, George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lamont, Norman

  Beale, W. P.

  Elibank, Master of

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)

  Erskine, David C.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Bell, Richard

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, W.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lynch, H. B.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Bertram, Julius

  Ffrench, Peter

  Maclean, Donald

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Rom'rd)

  Field, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Callum, John M.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Crae, George

  Brace, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Branch, James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Killop, W.

  Brigg, John

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Bright, J. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Ginnell, L.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

  Glover, Thomas

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Meagher, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Menzies, Walter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hall, Frederick

  Money, L G. Chiozza

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas.

  Halpin, J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hammond, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cameron, Robert

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murnaghan, George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Murphy, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, James

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Myer, Horatio

  Clough, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

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

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  708

  709

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Grady, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Vivian, Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Robinson, S.

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Malley, William

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  O'Mara, James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Shee, James John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wardle, George J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seddon, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Shackleton, David James

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Snowden, P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Radford, G. H.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rees, J. D.

  Summerbell, T.

  Winfrey, R.

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Young, Samuel

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Richardson, A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tomkinson, James

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to insert words at the end of the clause to provide that the granting of a lease for ninety-nine years and upwards should be considered as compensation for all improvements made before the granting of such lease. He said that this was an Amendment of considerable importance. Where the intention was to grant a ninety-nine years lease, a building agreement was first entered into, and that agreement recited that in consideration of the builder erecting buildings of certain value on the property a lease for ninety-nine years should be granted. That was the way in which practically all building leases had been granted in England. Unless an Amendment of this kind were made—and any practical surveyor would say that it was necessary—there would be the greatest difficulty in inquiring into arrangements which were made many years ago. The Amendment simply said that where there had been a lease granted for ninety-nine years it was to be presumed that the consideration for the granting of the lease was the building of the property. The Amendment involved a mere matter of machinery, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
  MR. HICKS BEACHseconded the Amendment
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words, 'provided that the granting of a lease for ninety-nine years and upwards shall be considered as compensation for all improvements made before the granting of such lease.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. CLANCYhoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment. No doubt under certain circumstances a lease might be granted on conditions that might be regarded as ample consideration for the improvements, but the question depended on circumstances in each case. A lease for ninety-nine years at a very low rent might well be deemed a valuable consideration for the improvements made, but a lease for the same period at as high a rent as could be obtained would be no consideration at all. In one of the places in Ireland where the necessity had arisen for this Bill owing to rapacious conduct of the landlords, the practice, as he understood it, had been to double, treble, and quadruple the

  711
  rents for leases, and actually to make a tenant pay on his own improvements. In that case the lease would be no consideration at all. The second subsection of Clause 1 secured ample protection to the landlord. If this Amendment were carried the result would be that, no matter whether the rent was high or low, or whether or not it included the increased value added by the tenant, the mere granting of the lease would be held to be ample consideration.
  MR. BARRIEin supporting the Amendment said he did so with all the more confidence as hon. Members would credit him with having in Committee exhibited considerable sympathy with the principle of the Bill. He admitted that through the unwise action of certain landlords in recent years this question had been considerably advanced in Ireland. During the progress of the Bill through Committee he had repeatedly voted with the Government. Some landlords had abused their monopoly by refusing to grant the customary ninety-nine years leases. The leases they had granted were mostly for twenty-one or forty-four years, and in no case exceeding sixty-one years. The result would be that the tenant must keep the property in a good state of repair and hand it over without receiving any compensation. He was free to admit that this measure as originally introduced was one for which he could not have voted; but now that it was modified and when the expressed intention of the Government was to modify it further, he cherished the hope that it might leave the House in such a shape that it would do good rather than evil. A lease for ninety-nine years would cover the full lifetime of moderately well-built property, and he thought there would be no hardship on any tenant who had the exclusive right to the properly for ninety-nine years being called upon to surrender his lease without any compensation. He therefore urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BUCKMASTERsaid he would be glad to get a little further information in regard to what the Government proposed to do with this Amendment. From what had been said on the other side of the House there seemed to be misapprehension as to its effect. He himself must not be taken to be in favour of building leases for ninety-nine years. These, he believed, had caused a great deal of mischief, and in many cases great hardship in the London suburbs; but the question now was whether, when a man had accepted that form of tenure, and thereby received consideration for work done, he or his successor should also be entitled to compensation at the end of the lease. If so, he would be paid twice over for the same work. An hon. Member below the gangway said that the Amendment would impose hardship on the tenant because the landlord would double or even quadruple the rent.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that what ho had stated was that at Kingstown when new leases were granted the rent stipulated for was six times greater than before.
  MR. BUCKMASTERsaid that that did not meet the case provided for by the Amendment, The hon. Member would see that the rent was not increased during the continuance of the term. He must say that the Amendment did not seem to him unreasonable. He was quite satisfied that everyone would admit that any improvement made before the exists once of a lease was fully compensated for by the lease being granted for ninety-nine years.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the hon. Member did not seem to perceive the effect of the Amendment. If during the currency of a lease, or other tenancy, a man executed improvements on the house or building, the landlord at the expiry of the lease or tenancy, would come to him, if this Amendment were passed, and said: "Here is a lease for ninety-nine years," and reserve a rack rent on

  713
  the improvements. There was not a word in the Amendment as to the terms of the lease, and therefore it would be competent if it were passed for the landlord to come to an improving tenant either on an expiring lease or on a tenancy from year to year and say, "Here is a lease for ninety-nine years"—with regard to a new tenancy, fix a rack rent based on the tenant's improvements, and thus reserve a rent calculated on the tenant's own improvements, and wipe out all the effect of this Act, That was the effect of the Amendment, and he thought the hon. Member would see the grotesque injustice of it. The case the hon. Member alluded to was an entirely different one. It was that in which a man made a bargain and speculated in the rise and fall of land, and undertook to build a house provided he got a ninety-nine years lease of the land. That was covered under subsection (2), Section 1, and undoubtedly under that sub-section that would be held to be, as they understood it, an implied valuable consideration for an improvement. But this Amendment was another attempt — the seventh or eighth — by a flank movement to destroy and wipe away the Bill and place it in the power of the landlord, by preferring a lease for ninety-nine years, to do away with all claim for compensation for improvements.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. Member for East Mayo was in some respects accurate in the view he put forward in regard to the Amendment and in some respects inaccurate. He seemed to think that by the mere offer made by the landlord the tenant could be deprived of compensation. In that the hon. Member was absolutely wrong, because they were only dealing with the case in which a lease for ninety-nine years had been granted—had been offered to and accepted fairly and squarely between the parties without any fraud. He did not suppose anyone could dispute that if a
  714
  man had undertaken to erect a building,' when he had that building erected, and got a ninety-nine years lease, that man was not perfectly competent to conduct the whole transaction. In consideration of his building a house and making a security for the landlord's rent, he had got the exact bargain that he wanted. He built the house and got undisturbed possession of it for ninety-nine years. Did anybody suppose that in such a case as that the House of Commons ought to indicate that, in addition to giving him a ninety-nine years lease, at the end of the ninety-nine years the landlord was to pay the man for the house which he had built in consideration of his getting a lease of the land? The mere statement of such a case showed the injustice of the Bill, unless they put in some such limiting words as those proposed. That was one case, but the hon. Member supposed that another set of circumstances might arise, and here again the Bill did not discriminate in any way between those circumstances. He thought the case which the hon. Member for East Mayo had in his mind was the case where a tenant, under an existing lease or tenancy, built a house, and that lease expiring, the landlord granted him a new lease of the same house. But that was not the case of a house being built in consideration of the lease being given. It was a house built under an old contract of tenancy, but prior to the time when the ninety-nine years lease was granted. He did not care what his successors had to pay in ninety-nine years for any house in which he was interested. He did not know whether in ninety-nine years, at the rate at which they were going, there would be any right in those premises, whether they would be even allowed to have successors, let alone to have property to give to these successors; but it was important to see, as desired by the hon. Member for Cambridge, that in the case of a building lease, compensation was not paid twice over. He would

  715
  leave his successors of ninety-nine years hence to look after themselves.
  MR. CHERRYsaid there appeared to be some mistake with regard to the meaning of this Amendment. If the scope of the Amendment were confined to the case of a lease for ninety-nine years made in consideration of the building of a house, either in pursuance of a contract made a year or two before, or actually when the lease was granted, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman need trouble much about it, because the case would be met by an Amendment to Clause 2, of which he had given notice, to the effect that "a tenant shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration." In the case of a lease being expressly made in consideration of the house having been improved recently, the lease itself was compensation for the tenant's improvements, and he could not get any further compensation.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid they had to deal with retrospective tenants, and unless it was expressed in the lease it would not count.
  MR. CHERRYsaid if it were expressed in the lease it was clear, but if not it was necessary for the landlord to show that the lease was given in consideration of the improvement, in which case he would succeed.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the Attorney-General for Ireland had committed
  716
  a mistake of a most astonishing character, because although it was true that the putting up of a house might be the consideration for a lease, it did not at all follow that the lease was a consideration for the putting up of a house. It seemed to him that the Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to move at a later stage failed to meet the point, because he had put the cart before the horse in the method of expressing the transaction.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEthought the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not at all meet the point that had been raised. A landlord who had granted a lease on condition that a certain sum (say £500) should be expended in building a house on the land which was leased would be called upon to pay to the lessee at the expiration of the lease any additional sum (say another £500) which the lessee might see fit to expend during the continuance of the lease in improving or adding to the house originally built on the land.
  MR. GLENDINNINGthought this Amendment would do a great injustice to a great number of people in Ireland, and he sincerely hoped the Government would adhere to the original clause. He knew of cases in Belfast where good houses were derelict because of the rent that was demanded of the tenants who had occupied them until their leases expired. He himself was at a house on which the lease expired. The original rent was £31, and the ground landlord demanded £175, after improvements costing £1,500 had been made. He was quite ready to give £80, but the landlord refused, although ultimately he had to let it for £50.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would meet the difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge, but it would not cover the whole ground. It was quite true that the Amendment would cover the case of a man who, in consideration of a promised lease for ninety-nine years, built a house. There was, however, a case for which this Amendment was required. If a man expended a certain sum on a property and his lease expired, he could not have a new lease forced upon him, but he could refuse to take the lease and threaten to take the landlord into court and make him pay compensation not only for improvements, but also for being disturbed under Clause 5. The tenant, therefore, was in the position at the expiration of a lease of being able to say that if the landlord did not grant him a new lease on favourable and reasonable terms he would take him into court and obtain value for his improvements and compensation for disturbance. But if the tenant took a new lease for ninety-nine years, why should his successor at the end of that time be allowed to go back on the state of affairs existing before the new lease was granted? It would be grossly unjust and manifestly unfair. That case was not covered by the next Amendment. He thought the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge was covered by the Amendment of his right hon. friend, but he did not think that that Amendment covered the entire ground, and it would be possible, notwithstanding that Amendment, for a tenant, at the expiration of a new lease for ninety-nine years, to go before the Court and say, "Nothing was said about abandoning my claims in the
  718
  old case, and I am now entitled to go back to the relations which existed ninety-nine years ago, and demand compensation for the buildings which then existed." He could not for the life of him see what harm could be done by accepting the Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be greatly concerned about something which could not happen before the year 2005. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleague said he was careless about what his successors in title would have to pay in ninety-nine years' time, and he thought they need not trouble themselves about anything which would not arise before that date. There would probably be many amending Acts upon this subject before that year was reached.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he thought they would do well to accept the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General for Ireland, for it covered a point which was not covered by the Amendment now before the House. He had had hundreds of these building leases pass through his hands, and the preliminary agreement usually stated that in consideration of the building of the house by the lessee the lessor would grant a lease at a fixed rent for ninety-nine years, and it was generally a low rent. But the lease was usually granted as soon as the roof was on the house, and before completion, and the house was not finished until after the date of the lease. The terms of the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned friend excluded from compensation any improvement which the lessee had done before the date of the lease, and therefore the Amendment would require the words "before the

  719
  granting of such lease, or in consideration of the granting of such lease." That was a point which the Attorney-General's Amendment covered, and it would come in at a better place in Clause 2. Might they take it the Attorney-General would insert his Amendment?
  MR. CHERRY: Certainly.
  MR. RAWLINSON, on that undertaking, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. If he had noticed the Amendment of the Attorney - General he would not have moved his own
  The House divided:—Ayes, 312; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 426.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Alden, Percy

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Armitage, R.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas

  Elibank, Master of

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Byles, William Pollard

  Erskine, David C.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cairns, Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cameron, Robert

  Essex, R. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clough, William

  Field, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Clynes, J. R.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Beale, W. P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexhm)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Bell, Richard

  Cooper, G. J.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinstd)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gilhooly, James

  Benn, W. (T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Bennett, E. H.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Ginnell, L.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cox, Harold

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Bertram, Julius

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Billson, Alfred

  Crean, Eugene

  Glover, Thomas

  Boland, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Brace, William

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Delany, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Branch, James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brigg, John

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Bright, J. A.

  Dillon, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Halpin, J.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hammond, John

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Amendment. He was quite satisfied it had the same effect as his own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRYCEclaimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the word "tenancy" inclusive, in page 2, line 2, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the word "tenancy," inclusive, in page 2, line 2, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Shackleton, David James

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Harwood, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murphy, John

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, James

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Myer, Horatio

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Snowden, P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nicholson, Chas, N. (Doncaster)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Steadman, W. C.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Grady, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Malley, William

  Tomkinson, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Mara, James

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Toulmin, George

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Ure, Alexander

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Verney, F. W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lambert, George

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Lundon, W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Rendall, Althelstan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Riphards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wiles, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williamson, A.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  M'Killop, W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robinson, S.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Maddison, Fred rick

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Winfrey, R.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wood, T. (M'Kinnon)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Young, Samuel

  Massie, J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Menzies, Walter

  Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Seaverns, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Seddon, J.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (City L'nd'n)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  722

  723

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James (Farquharson)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Haddock, George R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Cave, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Starkey, John R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hills, J. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Younger, George

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Cross, Alexander

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Bill to the word 'tenancy' in page 2, line 2, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, speaking seated and with his hat on, called attention to a point of order. He said sub-section (2) of Standing Order 26 limited the closure to the clause under consideration at the time the closure was moved. This Motion was that they should jump from the middle of Clause 1 to the middle of Clause 2.
  The words of the Standing Order were—
  "When the Motion that 'the Question be now put,' has been carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair;

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

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

  Alden, Percy

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bertram, Julius

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Billson, Alfred

  Armitage, R.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Boland, John

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Beale, W. P.

  Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bock, A. Cecil

  Brace, William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Branch, James

  and also if a clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) that the question, that certain words of the clause defined in the Motion stand part of the clause, or that the clause stand part of, or be added to, the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or debate."
  That did not enable a Motion to be moved to go from the middle of one clause right over into the middle of the next clause.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the Motion has been frequently accepted, and if I were to search I think I could find precedents for it.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 316; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 427.)

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Kean, John

  Bright, J. A.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Killop, W.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)

  Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bryee, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Meagher, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Menzies, Walter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gulland, John W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mooney, J. J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Morrell, Philip

  Cairns, Thomas

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morse, L. L.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hall, Frederick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Chance, Frederick William

  Halpin, J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hammond, John

  Murphy, John

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Myer, Horatio

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Clough, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholls, George

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Kondal (Tipperary Mid)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Corbett, CH. (Suessx, E. Grinst'd)

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cotton, Sir H J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Cox, Harold

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Grady, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Crean, Eugene

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Horniman Emslie John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardnor

  O'Malley, William

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Mara, James

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Delany, William

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Duffy, William J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Dr.

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Erskine, David C.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rees, J. D.

  Essex, B. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lough, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lundon, W.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Richardson, A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lynch, H. B.

  Ridsale, E. A.

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Field, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Robinson, S.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Crae, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rose, Charles Day

  726

  727

  Runciman, Walter

  Summerbell, T.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Seddon, J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson James

  Wiles Thomas

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

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Toulmin, George

  Williamson, A.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Ure, Alexander

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon John

  Verney F. W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Vivian Henry

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.)

  Snowden, P.

  Walker, H De R (Leicester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Winfrey, R.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Walton, Sir John L (Leeds, S.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Steadman, W. C.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Young, Samuel

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Watt, H Anderson

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir Wiliam Reynell

  Craig, Capt. James (Down. E.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ashley W. W.

  Cross, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Randles, Sir John Seurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark-Govan)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury, S. Edmd's)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Younger, George

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, Further Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Eleven o clock.

Preamble
Earldom of Norfolk.—Committee for Privileges to meet on Tuesday next, at Two o'clock.
The Earl of Rothes took the Oath.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; of inhabitants of parishes of Radcliffe (Lancashire); Barton (Cumberland) and Wrightington; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of; of inhabitants of parish of Emmanuel, Clifton. Bead, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL HIBERNIAN ACADEMY AND METROPOLITAN SCHOOL OF ART, DUBLIN.
  Report by Committee of Inquiry into the work carried on by the Royal Hibernian Academy and the Metropolitan School of Art, Dublin; together with minutes of evidence, appendices, and index.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3732. France (Foreign Trade for 1905 and first six months of 1906). No. 3733. Mexico (Trade for 1905–1906).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years and outstanding on 31st October, 1906, which have been written off. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie or the Table.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Discussion resumed on following Amendment—
"To insert as a new clause:—' (1) The Board of Education may recognise as a State-aided school, efficiently contributing to the public education of the district in which is situated, any school which, though not a publics elementary school provided by the local education authority, fulfils the conditions laid down in the code of regulations for public elementary schools for the time being in force in regard to management, premises, accommodation, equipment, teaching staff, curriculum and inspection, and in respect of which an application is made to them for recognition by the managers. But it shall be a condition to any such recognition that—(a) The Board of Education are satisfied that the teachers are adequately remunerated, regard being had to the rate of salaries paid by the local education authority to teachers in public elementary schools in the area; (b) the managers guarantee the use and the cost of the upkeep of the school buildings and premises and all other cost of maintaining the school (except such part of the cost as may be defrayed by Parliamentary grants) for a period of three years, which guarantee shall be renewable from time to time; (c) the regulations contained in paragraphs one, two, and three of Section 7 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (a copy of which shall be conspicuously put up in the school) are complied with in the case of the school. (2) Where a school is recognised under this section as a State-aided school the Board of Education shall, notwithstanding anything in the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, or in this Act, pay to that school the Parliamentary grants which would be payable in respect of the school or of the scholars attending the school if it were a public elementary school provided by the local education authority. (3) A State-aided school shall be treated as a public elementary school for the purpose of the Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Act, 1898. (4) A State-aided school shall be under the control of the managers, who, in addition to their other powers of management, shall have power to make provision for giving religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and to charge school fees not exceeding ninepence per week, and to refuse admission to children for whom they have not sufficient accommodation or sufficient teaching staff. (5) A State-aided school and its registers shall at all reasonable times be open to the school attendance officers of the local education authority, but shall not be otherwise controlled or maintained by the authority. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of a local education authority to provide such school accommodation in public elementary

503
schools provided by it as it may consider desirable for any district in which a State-aided school is situated, and in so doing the authority shall have regard to the wishes of parents who do not desire their children to attend any such State-aided school."
LORD AVEBURYhoped he might be allowed to say a few words in support of the clause. There had been for some time an Amendment standing on the Paper in his (Lord Avebury's) name with a very similar object, but he had postponed it thinking that it would come with so much greater force from the right rev. Primate. The Amendment in question would have had practically the same result as that now before the Committee. It was intended to give effect to a proposal made in the House of Commons, from the Liberal side of the House, by Mr. Harold Cox, the Member for Preston. The proposal had the support of some of the highest educational authorities in the House, especially of Sir William Anson and Sir Henry Craik. The latter had presided so long and with such conspicuous ability over the Education Department of Scotland that he spoke with great authority upon this subject, particularly as since his Grace had told them that so many of the Scottish schools were carried on under that system. He for one had often thought that the more they could approximate the English system to that of Scotland, the better it would be for the education of the country. Then the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Balfour, had said that the scheme of this Bill inevitably carried with it the acceptance of some such Amendment as that now before their Lordships' House. And lastly he might observe that if the seats in the House of Commons had corresponded at all with the votes given in the country at the last general election the clause would have been carried by a very large majority, showing that it had the support of those who were interested in education throughout the country. They had often heard that the responsibility for the Bill rested with the Front Opposition Bench, and that it would not have been necessary if it had not been for the Act of 1902. If that were the case this clause was really necessary, and was not in any way in opposition to the Bill, and he hoped,
504
therefore, that it would receive favourable consideration from His Majesty's Government. He further claimed the support of the Committee on the grounds of economy. They had heard a great deal about the grant of £1,000,000 which was to be devoted to the purposes of this Bill from the National Exchequer, and the Government had told them several times that they really were unable to form any idea what the charge upon the rates would be under this Bill. The noble Earl the President of the Council in summing up the debate, had referred to the figures which had been given by Sir George Doughty, and had said that he could not imagine that the expense would come to anything like the figure he had mentioned. He (Lord Avebury) had tried also to ascertain what the expense would be. It was no doubt true that it was impossible to say what the Bill might cost the country, but he was afraid it was not so difficult to say what it must cost the country. In the first place, there were school places to be found for over 3,000,000 children, and he thought that those of their Lordships who know what the expense of providing school places was (and those school places must either be provided by building new schools, or by buying or renting the present schools) would agree with him that for those 3,000,000 school places £2,000,000 was a very moderate figure; indeed, he would be very much surprised if that figure was not exceeded. Then there was the question of the cost of education per child. There were 3,000,000 children in these voluntary schools. In London the difference between the cost of a child in a board school and in a voluntary school was £1 13s. 9d.; in the country as a whole the difference was 13s. 6d. He thought, therefore, that in taking 8s. as the extra cost to be incurred under the Bill they were taking a very moderate figure, and, indeed, one which he was afraid would be largely exceeded. But taking 3,000,000 children at 8s. per head extra, the Bill under this head would cost the country £1,200,000. There were 14,000 schools, and they could not possibly put the alterations and repairs for 14,000 schools at

505
less than half a million a year. Then there were establishment charges, and taking those at the moderate figure of £10 per school, that would come to £140,000; making the total up to something a little over £4,000,000. He did not ask his noble friend to go into those figures on the present occasion, but he hoped that he would take an opportunity at some future time of pointing out why he thought those figures were all wrong, and that instead of £4,000,000 the Bill would only cost £1,000,000, He might also observe that in addition to all those charges there would be at the commencement a somewhat heavy expenditure for the Commissioners, and a considerable permanent increased cost for the great number of extra duties which the Bill threw upon the Board of Education. He could not help thinking, therefore, that they would be rather fortunate than otherwise if £4,000,000 covered the whole expenditure under the first part of the Bill. The second, moreover, would in some places add heavily to the rates. Surely that was a very great reason why they should economise where it was possible. If in England one-tenth of the schools were to be under the Archbishop's clause—as they knew was the case in Scotland—they would be saving to the rates some half million a year. Sir Henry Craik, who was so well acquainted with the Scottish system, and with all appertaining to it, was most strenuous in favour of the clause, and had given very strong reasons why he believed that the proposal which now worked so well in Scotland would work well in England also. It certainly would give variety—elasticity—to the educational system of the country—an advantage which was not lightly to be estimated. Sometimes they were told that these voluntary schools were not such good schools as the board schools. It might be admitted that the buildings were sometimes humbler, and the appliances not quite so up to date, but, on the other hand, just as it had been well said that—
"Stone walls do not a prison make,"
neither did stone walls make a school, and he was sure that every one of their Lordships who had been acquainted with the working of schools would agree with him that it was rather the spirit in
506
which the school was carried on that was important. Its success depended upon the energy, the experience, and the enthusiasm of the schoolmaster and of the committee much more than on the walls and the desks—the success of the school depended much more on the living elements thrown into it than it did on the mere material, appliances. Every school carried on under the clause suggested by his Grace the Archbishop must be carried on by people who would have subscribed considerably towards the expense of the school, who would have shown, therefore, that they had education at heart, and that they were ready to make sacrifices for the success of the school. He felt satisfied that schools carried on in that spirit, and in that manner, were eminently likely to be successful and useful. He ventured, therefore, to commend that clause to their Lordships, partly because it must inevitably tend to lighten the rates—every school which came under the clause would be a considerable saving to the rates—and even more because it would retain a valuable, and he hoped an increasing, element in the educational system of the country.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHthought that there was a great deal to be said for this clause, and that it would commend itself to the sympathy of their Lordships, particularly on account of the arguments brought before them by the noble Lord who had just spoken. He might perhaps very respectfully urge that sub-section (6) of the clause would not be very workable or very necessary. That sub-section said—
"Nothing in this section shall affect the power of a local education authority to provide such school accommodation in public elementary schools provided by it as it may consider desirable for any district in which a State-aided school is situated."
In other words, it gave power to a local authority, if it thought fit, and they could not tell exactly what might guide the decisions of those authorities, to erect a school side by side with a State-aided school. And if that were so it would very much defeat, he thought, the whole scheme of State-aided schools, because it would entail, in that case, a serious and heavy responsibility upon the ratepayers of the district, who would

507
otherwise be very much relieved from rates. If the local authority chose to avail themselves of that power—he presumed by the compulsory purchase of land clause— to erect a school of their own side by side with an already existing State-aided school, the ratepayers of such districts would not only have to pay the ordinary education rate of the county in addition to their private subscriptions which they would contribute for the, support of the State-aided school, but would also be saddled with a very heavy charge for the building of the new school, amounting to probably several thousands of pounds; and, as their Lordships were aware, it was often the custom in public councils to charge three-fourths of the expense of a new school upon the particular parish or area to which it related. So that he was afraid that the unfortunate ratepayers, if sub-section (6) were carried into effect, might be hit both ways, which would rather tend to nullify the undoubted advantages which a State-aided school would otherwise have, and which would naturally commend themselves to their Lordships.
LORD KINNAIRDsaid that as a governor of a school which would undoubtedly be affected if the Amendment were included in the Bill, he should like so say a few words. Their Lordships might remember that he referred to a school which was probably to be extinguished under the Act. When the London County Council swept away the fees the managers of the school in question went to the parents, and consulted them, and it was found that they preferred to pay the fees, and when they were not allowed any longer to pay fees, they became voluntary subscribers of the school, because they preferred a select school so long as it would be allowed. He need not go into all the detail of the discussion with the county council, but at last they had to withdraw the school from them, and they were now continuing it as an elementary school— of course with a grant—for which the parents paid; and at present the parents of about 700 children availed themselves of that school. If they had been allowed to continue with the local authority they would have saved them £800 a year in fees, they would have
508
saved them the expense of acquiring a new school which he might put—although of course it was merely a guess—at something between £50,000 and £80,000; but, as he had said, at the present time they were continuing, by the wish of the parents, who were willing to pay that amount in order to make it self-supporting. It would commend itself, he thought, to a great number of people—first of all, as noble Lords had said, to the ratepayers, because it would save them considerable expense. At present their attention in London—and he had no doubt it was also the case in the country, but more especially in London— was being drawn to the fact of the rise in rates, and they would probably increase under this Bill; and he thought if schools were allowed to maintain their independent existence it would be popular with the ratepayers. Of course it all depended on the parents as to the success and maintenance of the schools, and many of them believed that a large number of parents not only in London but in many other places, as in Scotland, liked to have their children in rather a better school—he might say of the same class as a higher grade board school. Then with reference to education, he did not think that anyone would dispute that the schools which this might help or save from destruction, would be of a class where the education for many years past had been first class. He did not think he need labour that point, as that was admitted, he believed, on all sides. He would not go into any detail, because possibly His Majesty's Government in another place might consider that it was too late to bring this proposal into the Bill. He hoped anyhow that the subject having been ventilated, his Grace would, if it were not accepted now, see the wisdom at some time next session of bringing in a small separate Bill, which ought not to take long, in order to admit of keeping in existence several schools, and even the bringing back under the education authority of some schools which might break away, because they all felt the importance of having Government inspection. But unless that class was admitted and brought in he was afraid that the school he referred to, and some

509
others, would not be under Government inspection. He did not think that education would suffer so very much, but at all events they would always be glad, having reaped so great an advantage in the past from the visits of His Majesty's inspectors, to have that system continued. With these few words, having seen the working of the school which he had mentioned, he would just call their Lordships' attention to the practical advantage which would be given in respect of economy, in respect of the parents, and in respect of the good education of the children. He hoped His Majesty's Government would see their way to admit this provision into the Bill.
A NOBLE LORDsaid that there seemed to him to be an ambiguity in sub-section (4). If said—
"A State-aided school shall be under the control of the managers who, in addition to their other powers of management, shall have power to make provision for giving religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870."
Did that mean giving religious instruction of the denomination to which the managers belonged, or did it mean all round facilities?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid perhaps it would be a convenience to the noble Lord that he should answer the Question now. The decision on such a point would rest entirely with the managers. They proposed to leave to the managers the question of the provision of religious instruction. He did not suppose it would be outside the powers of the managers, as the clause stood, to have more than one kind of special teaching, including what was called Cowper-Temple teaching. But, more probably, the teaching would usually be of one sort throughout the school. The arrangements would be left to the managers, and that was the very idea that underlay the principle of the clause.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): This clause of the most rev. Primate is, as he stated, of a very far-reaching character. It is perfectly true that it is not an entirely
510
novel suggestion as regards this Bill-because we have, as noble Lords will remember, made some provision for the possible existence of schools of this kind. At the same time, the extension which is proposed is one of a very grave character. The most rev. Primate said that he spoke in this matter rather as an educationist than from his great position as the principal dignitary in the Church of England. I can assure him that whether he speaks as one or the other, any suggestion of his will be respectfully listened to, by the Government as by the rest of your Lordships. But in considering this matter in connection with this particular Bill, there are one or two important considerations to be borne in mind. First of all, from the point of view of education. As is well-known to your Lordships, the establishment of anything like a large system of State-aided schools has been taken serious exception to from the educational point of view, I grant that any return to the conditions which existed before the year 1902, and which were, in the main, the cause of the introduction of the Act of 1902, would lead to a loss of educational efficiency. Against anything of that kind the most rev. Primate has guarded, so far as the words of a clause make it possible to guard. He has surrounded this system, if I may say so, with a sort of barbed wire entanglement, which ought to make it impossible for any school to escape into a state of inefficiency. But it is a question which I think the Committee must ask itself, as to whether any restrictions, however elaborate, will, or would in certain events, ensure the maintenance of the standard of these schools at the point which the elementary education of this country is expected to reach; The difficulty, I think, which must confront everybody in considering this matter arises out of the necessary position of such schools as these. They are started under these elaborate restrictions, and it is provided most carefully that their efficiency should in every way be maintained. There may be four or five different factors which go to make up the efficiency of a public elementary school, and if this school falls short in any one of those—if it falls below the standard, that is to say, of a good

511
council school, or of a good public elementary school of a voluntary character —it would be the duty of the Board of Education to call attention to the fact, and, if necessary, to take action. What action can the Board of Education take in such a case? It has only one action, namely, to pass sentence of death on the school. It must close the school. It has no other power. After having tried remonstrance it has no power of penalising the school except with the result of closing it. It stands to reason, therefore, that when you have only this one sentence of extinction, you naturally lose that power of regulation, and of enforced improvement, which I think would almost be necessary if schools on this system were to become part of our national plan of education. What it is feared would happen is this—that being unwilling to close the school, the authorities would gradually —perhaps very gradually, but still certainly—fall into the state of things which existed before 1902; that is to say, they would close their eyes to certain deficiencies in these schools, certain respects in which they fell short of what was considered the proper standard. It would almost, I think, inevitably happen that in certain cases there would be some lapse from the standard which the most rev. Primate sets before himself, and it would place the Board of Education in a very serious difficulty if they had only left the choice between condoning that lapse and closing the school. And there is no doubt that in the minds of many there is a fear that this might lead to a different state of things. It might so happen that a Government was in power, and presiding over the Board of Education, which was so determined to maintain these schools and not to close them, that it was prepared to go on indefinitely increasing the grants in the case of these particular schools in order to keep them alive until the amount of the grant might reach the sum now provided by grant and rates combined. That, of course, is a possible political solution, but in view of the fact that the elementary education of the country has been in the main entrusted to the local authority, it is not a result which
512
we, at any rate, could look upon without concern.
So much for the educational aspect. But it is also necessary to consider what is the bearing of this proposal on this particular Bill as it stands. The most rev. Primate stated, and stated most fairly, that he looked on this proposal from an educational point of view, and not as providing a means of escape from what some may think the rather rigorous provisions of this measure. But, my Lords, would the public generally so regard it if it were included in this Bill? Would it not be understood that this clause was introduced here as providing a different kind of loophole from that which we provide under Clauses 4 and 5 of this Bill, in order that those who are not content with the facilities offered under the measure might, as I say, find a loophole of escape? As we interpret the views of the whole country on this matter, they are these—that the country desires to see a normal type of school established under the county councils, but it admits certain very distinct exceptions, an admission to which we have given effect in Clauses 4 and 5. But we do not believe that the country would admit or desire a second method of escape from the normal system of council schools, and for that reason we think that to include a clause of this kind in the Bill would not only unnecessarily complicate the measure, but would at the same time greatly confuse the issue by, as I say, allowing two quite distinct exceptions to run concurrently. Therefore, if it became the desire of this House to institute a general system of these State-aided schools, we feel that it would hardly be compatible with our measure to continue Clauses 4 and 5. You must either have one or the other. If you are prepared to accept the suggestions for the safeguarding of denominational teaching which we make under Clauses 4 and 5, well and good; or it might be conceivable—though we think it educationally distinctly objectionable, and therefore inferior—that the country might agree to a system of State-aided schools standing outside its national system. But we do not think that

513
both are possible, and, therefore, so long as Clauses 4 and 5 remain in the Bill, we could not agree to the insertion of the right rev. Primate's clause.
As regards Clauses 4 and 5, as compared with this clause, there is, I think, no question, as far, at any rate, as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, that Clauses 4 and 5 would be considered preferable to a general system of State-aided schools, under which they obtained no assistance from the rates whatever. Consequently, we regard this proposition introduced here as directly contrary to the whole scheme which we had in view in introducing this Bill, and consequently we are not able as a Government to accept the proposal of the most rev. Primate.
A NOBLE LORDsaid there was one sentence which fell from the noble Earl which seemed to his mind to insinuate that there might be, at the Board of Education, a head who would regard the position of the denominational schools as different from their position at the present time, and that it would be possible to increase the efficiency grant to such an extent as to meet all the calls upon it. He did not understand how that could be arrived at. Perhaps the noble Earl would explain that sentence in his speech.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I was not speaking of anything which would be in the power of the Board of Education of that time, but of course it is quite possible for a sympathetic Government to increase the grant all round, which would enable the school to be carried on entirely by grant rather than by rates and grant combined.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid that the noble Earl opposite seemed to fear that the clause might impair the efficiency of the schools under it, but he would draw attention to the fact that if the schools were not efficient it was extremely unlikely that the parents would send their children to them, especially as under the clause the managers had the power of charging fees; and it was extremely unlikely that the parents would send
514
their children to such inefficient schools, especially when they were under the necessity of paying fees, seeing that they had a more efficient school, free from fees, equally at their disposal. He thought that was a consideration which was entitled to weight. He would also like to point out that if the schools were not efficient, there was nothing whatever to prevent the Board of Education withdrawing the grant—that was entirely in the discretion of the Board of Education. And further, he would have thought that the clause would be of extreme advantage both to the Bill and to the Government. It was quite uncertain (and he thought the discussion in that House yesterday proved it) upon what the £1,000,000 was calculated. He himself thought that the cost was much more likely to be £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 than £1,000,000 under the Bill. But, whether it was £1,000,000 or £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 would very largely depend upon the number of schools that were transferred. The Lord President of the Council must know that it was an extremely doubtful matter how many schools would be transferred unless Clause 4 and 5, and, he might add, Clause 3, were really made efficient. He thought that the noble Earl might be quite sure of this: that, whatever sacrifices were imposed upon the people, they would not transfer their schools if they did not get security for the religious teaching they desired; and, if schools were not transferred, that fact would largely add to the rates and greatly increase the money which would have to be spent under the Bill. Whilst Clauses 3, 4, and 5 were extremely important, the noble Earl must also be aware that with regard to schools belonging to the Church of England in the rural districts, Clauses 4 and 5 made their position extremely difficult. Under the new clause proposed by the most rev. Primate it would be possible (although at an expense which he considered would be a grave injustice) to save denominational teaching in many of the rural districts; and he hoped that in the interest of everybody, if it were possible to make this Bill a settlement, and finally to settle the question, that His Majesty's Government would really consider the

515
justice of accepting the clause, because he was satisfied that if that clause passed it would greatly ease the working of the Bill, should it become law.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am one of those who listened with sympathy as well as interest to the statement in which the most rev. Primate introduced his Amendment. On the merits, the Amendment seems a perfectly defensible one; it introduces us to the State-aided school in a very different guise from that in which it first appeared in Clause 5 of this Bill. In Clause 5 persons seeking to obtain extended facilities under Clause 4 were liable, after they had surmounted what the Lord President just now called "the barbed wire entanglements" conspicuous in many parts of the Bill, to find themselves put off with treatment as a State-aided school. It was, if I might so describe it, a penal settlement of the question. The present proposal is entirely different. The most rev. Prelate advocates the creation of these schools from an educational point of view in the interest of that variety which so many of us would like to see in the school system of this country; and also as a means of insuring denominational education in many parts of the country where that education is desired to be preserved. The proposal was also advocated by my noble friend Lord Avebury upon the ground that it was an economical proposal. I should be the last person in the world to make light of that argument, for I am convinced that, whatever merits this Bill possesses, if it possesses any, the merit of economy is not one. But I am not sure, so far as the most rev. Prelate's proposal is concerned, that I can see much in it upon the ground of economy; because if State-aided schools of this kind were to be numerous, there would be some danger that they would as a class, particularly if they were a numerous class, fall below the general level of efficiency which we desire to maintain. I am under the impression that the most rev. Prelate did not expect these schools to be a very numerous class, but that he intended them to be of a somewhat special and exceptional class designed to provide for exceptional
516
requirements. And, if that be so, of course the economical argument falls to the ground. But, my Lords, I am bound to say, after hearing what has been stated for His Majesty's Government by the Lord President, that I am very doubtful indeed whether the most rev. Prelate would be wise to press his Amendment upon the Committee. In the first place, let us remember that we have been constantly charged by noble Lords opposite with over-loading the Bill with Amendments. Many of our Amendments, I think, are not open to that imputation; but this would certainly be a very serious and considerable excrescence upon the Bill; and I should, for that reason alone, hesitate to take the responsibility of recommending it. But there is another consideration which weighs more strongly still with me. I have always, from the moment when I first saw the most rev. Prelate's Amendment, felt that it was open to this objection; that if it were adopted the existence of these State-aided schools would certainly be used as an argument for whittling away the advantages to be given to schools enjoying extended facilities under Clause 4 of the Bill. The noble Earl's speech she we that my suspicion was not an idle one, because he told us, with great frankness, towards the close of his remarks, that in his opinion we should have to choose between the advantages of this proposal, and the advantages already to be found in the Bill under Clauses 4 and 5. I know that the most rev. Prelate expressly disclaimed the idea of intending this Amendment to supplant the provisions contained in the 4th and 5th clauses; but I am as sure as that I am standing here that if we were to introduce these new sections into the Bill they would be used as arguments for taking away the privileges which are already offered to us under the 4th and 5th clauses. My feeling is that we should be wise to concentrate ourselves upon those clauses—to insist, as we have hitherto insisted, that the advantages offered in those clauses shall be real advantages, that they shall not be surrounded by irksome conditions which will make them virtually untenable; and that we should content ourselves with securing those points, rather than seek to proceed upon what the Lord

517
President called alternative and concurrent lines. I think he is right in saying that to do so would confuse the issue, and that it might lead to the loss of some of the provisions which we regard as the most important contained in this measure.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKthought the subject was of sufficient importance to make it allowable, for a minute or two more, to protract the discussion. Nobody who knew the most rev. Primate would doubt for a moment that when he said a thing he meant it; and, as most of them had a considerable opinion of his judgment, he thought they would suppose that what was plain to the noble Marquess, and what had been plain to other speakers—namely, that this proposal would be likely to be discussed as an addition to denominational opportunities—was also present to his own mind, and therefore that it was rather against that than because of it he had proposed the clause to the Committee. He also thought that nobody who knew the deeper things of educational discussion would doubt that it was a most tenable opinion, and he, believed a growing opinion, that to unify the educational system, and to make it all of one kind and one piece, was not to improve it. To give a unity to it, as it were, in outline—to give a general grip and control upon the educational system of the country—was one thing; but within that outline, and under that control, to have a real variety of method and of character was a very great advantage. He very much wished, therefore, that on that ground His Majesty's Government could have seen their way to adopt something of the kind proposed. He could not help noting, as they passed, that it was not always bishops, or other wrong-headed persons of that kind, who introduced the religious difficulty into every stage of the educational discussion, because when they had a proposal, which had been, by its proposer, very carefully put upon other grounds, and not upon any form of the religious question, the noble Earl at once rose and said that he must bring it back again under the general heading, and under the general topic, of religious discussion, and on that account dismissed it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am bound to protest against that view of what I said. What I did say was that I felt bound to call the attention of the Committee, and of the most rev. Primate, to the colour which may be put upon his Amendment outside. It was no desire of mine to introduce the religious question at all.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKapologised to the noble Earl; what he had been saying was only half serious, and in fact, in his next sentence he had intended to express his own agreement with the noble Earl — which was, in fact, an agreement also with the noble Marquess— to the effect that whatever was said, and done, and wished, it would be considered outside as a denominational advantage. But that being so, he could not deny that he himself would like very much to see this clause included for that very purpose. And in that connection he thought they ought to say—and perhaps they ought to say even more than they had said—that it was their opinion that if. this subject was treated, as it ought to be treated, with due respect to opinions of different kinds, the noble Earl would not be getting up from that Bench and using such language as he had used. It was to him one of the saddest things of all the discussion that there were bodies of opinion which seemed to have so little knowledge of each other, and so little willingness to consider one another's views. He doubted very much, if he might be allowed to say so, whether the noble Earl, whose unfailing courtesy of expression in that House had been acknowledged again and again, knew at all what sort of impression was given to large bodies of deeply conscientious men who had served the State, as well as the Church, for many a year at great sacrifice and great cost, when they read such words as "loopholes of escape" and expressions of that kind. For it was indeed the fact that the effect of this Bill was to capture, as in a net, the great system of schools which had done half the work of the country for the last half century. It was a fact that the Bill was demolishing and pulling down that system, and (this was a point directly relevant to

519
the Amendment, treating it as he was now treating it) not only pulling down that system, but ignoring to a very large extent (and in saying this he had not forgotten Clauses 4 and 5, though he wished the hole in the bottom of them was filled up) the wishes and desires of those whom those schools represented. He did not know how much it was good to import into their debates the directly controversial element, but he had himself the feeling, and he was quite certain that the feeling was very widely shared outside the House, and probably within it too, that while they were discussing this detail and another, the great issue which was before the country, which appealed to the justice of the country, which appealed to the heart and to the feeling of the country, was often obscured and hidden; and he was sure that if only public feeling were on this subject what he thought it would be if it were better informed—what he thought it would yet be when the country came to look back a little later on the stages of this discussion — then such a suggestion as was contained in the clause now before the Committee, would be discussed from that Bench, and from every Bench in the House, in a somewhat different spirit.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that the right rev. Prelate had complained of his noble friend the Lord President of the Council's speaking of affording "loopholes of escape," but as the right rev. Prelate immediately went on to talk of the Government's preparing a net intended to catch and enclose in its meshes the great system of schools which had educated half the country for the previous half century, he must say that the right rev. Prelate himself seemed to have rather gone upon the lines which he had deprecated in another speaker. He would remind the right rev. Prelate that the question of the bearing of this clause upon this methods of teaching religion was most pointedly introduced and insisted upon by the noble Viscount opposite, who had pointed out how, under it rural and single school areas might get the money which was now given in urban areas under Clause 4. The right rev. Prelate might not like it introduced by other Members, but he thought that in the
520
view of the right rev. Bench the most important part of this education dispute was its bearing upon the religious question, for he felt quite sure that the right rev. Bench would not be so keen upon this question if they did not think that those two questions were almost insolubly united. He had thought that, after the speech of the noble Marquess who led the Opposition, probably the clause would have been withdrawn, and it was rather the speech of the right rev. Prelate that had drawn him from his intended silence; but as he still believed that the clause would be withdrawn, he would be very brief in what he had to say. He wished to point out to the most rev. Primate, and to the noble Lord who had spoken from the cross benches and who illustrated his argument by citing a school in which he took an interest, that the clause before the Committee did undoubtedly increase the cost to the taxpayer, because the Bill as it stood enabled any managers of a school held in trust for religious education to withdraw that school from all public aid and all public control, and to maintain it as a certified efficient school. The clause which the Government had put into the Bill, which prohibited them from that course unless they gave a guarantee so to maintain the school for five years, was struck out, and the managers of schools were left to their undoubtedly absolute legal liberty to carry out the terms of their trust if they pleased without State interference and without State support. But the operation of the most rev. Prelate's clause would be to enable all such persons who disliked local interference at once to maintain their schools, not as certified efficient schools, but as State-aided schools, receiving a grant which very easily might amount to £2 per head from the State, and therefore the clause proposed would be a distinct addition to the burdens of the taxpayer in the interests of those schools. But further he would like to point out what the operation of the clause would be. It. would take away from the parents any voice in the management of the schools. It was going back to the pre-1902 conditions, where the managers were everything and the parents nothing. The managers meant the owners. Those owners would enable

521
any person of importance in the village who had power and keenness of conviction and interest, to say, "I will maintain my school as a State-aided school under this clause, limiting the religious teaching to the body to which I belong." The parents would not be represented on the management at all, nor would there be a parents' committee to control the religious education. And then it was said, "Oh, but it would be the duty of the local authority to provide alternative accommodation." Why? The clause did not even make it the duty of the local authority. The clause as drafted by the most rev. Prelate ran thus—
"Nothing in this section shall affect the power."
There was a very important difference between a power and a duty That was a serious change made in the Act of 1902; whereas formerly it was a duty and an obligation of the local authority to provide all accommodation, there was a great alteration made in that Act. He could very easily imagine that many local authorities would be supremely indifferent to religious teaching, but supremely sensitive to the burden of the rate, who would not at all wish to exercise their power to provide another school in a village if a school was maintained there already which cost nothing to the rates. Further it might be said, "Oh, but surely some of the parents would bring pressure!" He was quite satisfied that in a small village, where the whole parish belonged to one proprietor—probably kind and benevolent, but perhaps a little old-fashioned, combining the sense of feudal authority with the sense of feudal responsibility— it would be very difficult for any of these villagers to ask for a separate school. Nobody supposed that the farmer would clamour for it. The cost of the school might fall up to two-thirds or three-fourths on the locality, and they coul not expect the farmers to be clamouring for a new rate to be put upon them. If it were possible to imagine that there might be two or three farm labourers unreasonable enough to clamour for it, "the farmer would very soon find a more reasonable set of labourers who would not put him to the expense of a new rate. The fact was that the proposed clause
522
would not hold water, and as he did not think it would be seriously pressed he would say no more.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdesired to express his gratitude to the Committee, and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury— particularly for the support which the latter had given to the larger considerations which led him, at least, to advocate that addition to the educational system of the country. He was quite certain that the question was one of increasing general interest, and he had no doubt that that interest, whatever might be the fate of this particular Bill, would continue to increase, and that the possibility of State-aided schools would not be lost sight of in the years that lay ahead. He believed the educational advantage would be very great indeed, and if it were worth while he thought he could answer pretty completely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, as to the probability that his would throw increased cost upon the public, either as rate payers or as taxpayers. Lord Stanley had spoken as though schools which would otherwise be costing nothing to the public would become State-aided schools, and therefore involve a new charge upon the taxes. That, he thought, was the argument of Lord Stanley. His own argument, on the other hand, would be that a vast number of children would by voluntary effort be educated in this way—after some years, after the system had been improved— who would otherwise have been educated at the full cost of both ratepayers and taxpayers, and therefore in the long run it would prove a saving and not an expense to the public. He confessed he looked with a little suspicion—though perhaps that was hardly the right word— upon the argument which he understood to be used by the Lord President: "Perhaps this scheme is quite fair, only the public will not think so." He did think that that was a dangerous argument to use when they were trying to do what was right. He thought they should try only to do what was right, and trust that in time the people will understand it to be right, even though at first there should be a misunderstanding on their part.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think I ought to remind the most Rev. Primate that I strongly pressed, to the best of my ability, that the educational arguments ought to prevail under any circumstances.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYquite agreed, but he just mentioned the allegation he had referred to as a line of argument which he should always be inclined to deprecate. He had noticed one thing with some little interest—he did not like to say satisfaction, except in so far as it was a satisfaction to find that things which one had said in fear and alarm seemed to be justified by the utterances of those who at first had not appeared inclined to accept the same view. In speaking of Clause 4 and its safeguards he, and those who thought with him, had said that even though they might be pretty thorough and complete as regards Roman Catholic schools, they were not so thorough and complete as regarded Church of England schools, and he had noticed that the noble Earl, in speaking of Clause 4, had said that it ought to have a very beneficial effect upon Roman Catholic, schools. That was precisely what many of them had felt to be the distinction between the schools which belonged to the Roman Catholics and the schools which belonged to the Church of England as regarded Clause 4. What they had tried to do in their Amendments was to make effective the provisions which they felt before to be delusive. After what had been said upon both sides of the House he did not desire to press his Amendment to a division. No doubt the matter would come before their Lordships again some day—not under this Bill but under another—and he hoped that he would then have the satisfaction of seeing that House have the opportunity of securing a development which he was certain would be of advantage to the cause of education as a whole.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HENEAGE, in moving the following new clause:—"In the case of all existing schools which may become provided schools under this Act, sub-
524
section (2) of Section (6) of the Education Act of 1902 shall be repealed, and it shall be enacted that two managers shall be nominated by the owners of the school and two managers elected by the parents of the children, in addition to two managers nominated by the local authority," said he was glad to inform their Lordships that this was not another controversy upon any religious question. It was a practical proposal for the appointment of managers to what were now existing schools but which would come in under the operation of Clause 1. In the schedule to the Bill, which was almost a Bill itself, the foundation managers set up under the Act of 1902 were to be abolished; and at the present moment there were no managers set forth in the Bill specially for those schools. The clause spoke for itself. He proposed that in the existing schools there should be two managers nominated by the owners, two by the parents, and two by the local authority; and he thought he could, in a very few words, give very fair reasons for all three proposals. These schools were only to come under the power and control of the local authority for five hours on the five days of the week on which the school was held, and at certain other times provided by Statute when meetings could be held there; but during the whole of the rest of the time of the week—the other hours of the five days and on Saturday and Sunday—they were entirely under the powers of the owners, who were altogether responsible for them. Therefore he thought it was only fair that if they were to be responsible for the management of the schools out of school hours, and for everything that might happen in them when they were either let, or lent for entertainment, or for any of the other purposes for which village schools of all denominations were used, they should have some representation upon the management. Consequently, he proposed that the owners should be represented by two managers. Next they came to the parents, and he thought, after the speech to which they had just listened from Lord Stanley of Alderley there was no doubt that the other side of the House were quite as anxious as they on that side were to see that the parents were represented

525
on these committees of management; and the other two managers would be appointed as they were now. He thought that with the clause as it now stood, and as he would propose it, there was a good opportunity of obtaining, in a friendly manner, a representation not only of all classes but of all denominations upon the committees of management, which was what he would desire. He was also of opinion that it would obviate a very great difficulty which he thought would exist in the separate parents' committees. He did not object to those parents' committees themselves, but he saw the greatest difficulty in working them; and he could not himself quite see—he might be entirely wrong, and perhaps the Lord President would be able to remove some of his difficulties—where the line was to be drawn between the powers of those parents' committees and the committee of managers. That was one of his chief difficulties. If the committee of managers was framed in the way which he proposed, it appeared to him that they would do the work, not only of the managers' committee, but of the parents' committee as well. Therefore he had worded it in that way. He believed he was perfectly correct in saying that if the great body of the owners in the country, as well as a great majority of both Houses of Parliament, in 1902 could have had their way, they would have preferred such a clause to the foundation managers clause; and he might, if the Committee would allow him to do so, speak from personal experience in the matter. He had never put the foundation managers clause into operation in the district school of which he had been chairman for the last thirty years; but he had called the ratepayers and the parents together for the three parishes which the school served, and had asked them to consider the names of those persons who should be managers; and in the end they had selected four unanimously, of whom of course two were to be appointed by the owners. He had then undertaken to get the local authority to appoint the other two, and they were appointed unanimously by arrangement with the local authority; and they had never had the slightest difficulty since.
526
They had, besides the two representatives of himself on the management, two Church of England representatives, one Roman Catholic and one Wesleyan; the Roman Catholic was a farmer, and the Wesleyan a labourer. That was what he should call an ideal board of managers; and he could not help thinking that if the same sort of committee could be set up in other parishes, it would obviate the difficulty which he foresaw in this parents' committee's running side by side with the committee of managers. It would get over that difficulty in a most satisfactory manner; and be begged to move the clause standing on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause, 'In the case of all existing schools which may become provided schools under this Act, Sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Education Act, 1902, shall be repealed, and it shall be enacted that two managers shall be nominated by the owners of the school, and two managers elected by the parents of the children, in addition to two managers nominated by the local authority.'" —(Lord Heneage).
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is impossible for the Government to accept the clause suggested by the noble Lord. It would surely be a paradox if in a provided school the majority of the managers represented anybody but the local authority. The more natural course which was provided by the Bill was that the management should follow the rule of the management of council schools— that four of the managers should be appointed by the county council and two by the minor local authority. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord says, that the school is obtained for the purposes of public education by the local authority; and at all other times its use is in the discretion of the owners. The mere fact that the owners had two representatives on the body, far from adding to the control which they would have over it would detract from it, because, as a matter of fact, the owners would have obviously the final voice in the disposition of the school when it was not used by the local authority. As regards the question of the committee of parents, as I understand the noble Lord, he thinks that in ordinary facility schools there should be no committee of parents.

527
But I must remark that the committee of parents was agreed to by us on the understanding that it was to have control over the special religious instruction and for no other purpose. We certainly should not be prepared to admit the parents, as such, to the general management of the school as proposed by my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT GOSCHENwas glad that his noble friend Lord Heneage had raised the point, because, so far, their Lordships' House had scarcely given sufficient attention to the question of managers. He thought there were many, both in that House and outside, who had not recognised the immense change which had been made in Clause I—not expressly, but through the Schedule, and through the phrase that they were to become provided schools — that in all schools the power was in future to rest in two local authorities, and that all managers, whom he would now call local managers, were swept away. Whatever the merits or the demerits of the present system of foundation managers, introduced in 1902, it had secured that the men chosen were men deeply interested in the school, men who were on the spot, and who were watching the whole progress of the school. In the future, according to the new system, four managers were to be elected by a distant authority and two by the minor local authority. But the parish itself had nothing to do with the administration of the school, they had no voice; and it would be perfectly possible that in some parishes there might be a totally different feeling with regard to the school from what existed at head quarters. And so the whole power (the noble Lord was perfectly right in saying so) would be taken away, and the managers would have practically no powers at all; they would simply be the mouthpiece of the distant authority. He thought it should be known generally that that great change had taken place. The next point was, what duties were the managers to have? He thought his noble friend was quite right in pointing to the fact that at present there would be the two authorities; the managers and the parents' committee. He thought the question would have to
528
be further discussed upon Clause 15 to which it was strictly germane. They would then have, with regard to the management of a parish school, the action of the distant authority, the action of the minor authority, the action of the parents' committee, and the action of the managers themselves— an administrative confusion which would, it appeared to him, in the future render the administration of the school extremely difficult. He hoped that His Majesty's Government, that House and the public, would consider, quite apart from the controversial questions with which they had to deal, that question of the local administration of the schools—who was to exercise a deal of influence over the schools, and who was to have such a necessarily watchful eve upon the proceedings in the schools. He hoped that that might be thoroughly kept in sight, and that it would be treated from a broader standpoint than he thought had hitherto been the case.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)desired, if he could do so without at all going again over the ground which had been already covered by the observations of the Lord President, to point out that the noble Viscount who had just addressed the Committee was under a misapprehension in saying that under the Act of 1902 the parish had no position. "Parish" was denned in the Definition Clause of that Act—
"The minor authority appointing one of the managers outside the areas of the local authorities."
Therefore, in provided schools at present the parish council, the parish represented by the parish council, not, it was true, by the managers, had the right of appointing managers and he might add that in some counties in regard to the non-provided schools an even larger representation was indirectly given to the parishes, because the county councils in some cases (he spoke of his own county certainly, and he knew it was the same in some neighbouring counties) recognised that it was practically impossible for a body like the County Education Committee, a rather central body sitting in the county town, to know clearly themselves who the

529
fit persons were in all the different parishes of the county. Therefore, what they did in the case to which he referred was this; they sent out, in regard to their own appointment, to all the parish councils to ask them to send up three names; and, from those three names they selected one. So that in reality the parish council had not only a power by law to appoint, but they had also practically a power in the appointment of the member appointed by the county council, because he was practically appointed on the recommendation of the parish council, seeing that the county council, very wisely as he thought in those circumstances, nearly always chose the name which the parish council sent up first on their list of three.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHwished to say one word upon what had fallen from Lord Heneage about the difficulties of the parents' committees. Of course it was an important departure from the Bill; and, as he understood, it received to some extent the sanction of His Majesty's Government; but upon the nature of the parents' committee everything seemed to turn, and their Lordships would see that it had not been exactly defined who were to compose the committee. First of all, were these four people to be elected by the parents to be parents themselves; were they necessarily to be parishioners or residents in the area to which the school applied; or might they be, in some cases or in all cases, outsiders? Because, as had already been pointed out, those parents were, in their very nature, of a somewhat unlettered and humble description, and on that account were all the more worthy of their Lordships' consideration. But, unless proper care was taken as to who were appointed, or how they were appointed, there was always the risk of certain influences being brought to bear, so as to get such and such a person elected not altogether with a single view, considering the extremely important functions with which they had to be charged, namely, the control of the religious instruction given in the school for which were to be responsible. He merely wished to draw the attention of the Committee to a point which he thought
530
had somewhat escaped notice, and which perhaps might be, at some future stage, a little more determined than it was at present, as to the exact nature of the persons who were to compose the committee which was to be elected by the parents. As to the nature of their election, that, he presumed, was to be governed by rules laid down by the Board of Education; but those rules, he supposed, would probably only refer to the method of election, as to whether it was to be by ballot, how the days were to be fixed, and so forth. But the other consideration, as to who exactly these people were to be, seemed to him to be very important, though at present it was left undefined in the Bill.
LORD HENEAGEasked whether the question raised on the present discussion was to be decided now or at a later stage-Clause 2 said that the local education authority might—
"Make any arrangements they think fit by agreement with the owners of the schoolhouse of the school for obtaining such use of it as is required for carrying on a public elementary school."
Supposing that they were to make it one of the stipulations, or propose it as one of the stipulations, that there should be one of the school managers appointed by the parents, would that be outside the arrangements possible?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it would, certainly.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESDoes the noble Lord press his Amendment?
LORD HENEAGE: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 14:—
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid there was an ambiguity about the syntax of subsection (2), which ran thus—
"The expression 'transferred voluntary school' means a school which is continued as a public elementary school by the local education authority in the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school, either under an arrangement made in pursuance of this part of this Act, or under an agreement for the purchase or hire of

531
the schoolhouse made after the passing of this Act and before the first day of January, 1908."
It was not clear upon the section whether that restriction of date referred to the arrangement made in pursuance of that part of the Act, or was only in regard to the agreement for purchase or hire. If the former, it was obvious, he thought, that the time was too short. It could be hardly possible for all the schools that might possibly desire an arrangement to complete their arrangements before the 1st January, 1908, and he saw no reason why they should be shut out from making arrangements at a later date. It might be that many voluntary schools would try to struggle on without making an arrangement, and at last be compelled by necessity to come in and make an arrangement. He could see no good reason why they should not be permitted to make an arrangement under Part I of the Act after the first part of the year had lapsed—just after, in fact, the Act came into force. The Act did not come into force until the 1st January, 1908, and he did not see why local authorities should be tied down to making an arrangement in the year 1907 and being in their present condition when no stimulus or pressure was put upon them to make an arrangement at all. They could go quite smoothly through the year 1907, and perhaps go on for a year or two afterwards, and they could then come in and make an arrangement under Clauses 3 and 4. What good reason was there against that? He could see none. On the other hand, if the restriction of date only applied to agreement to purchase or hire, then he could not understand the necessity of it at all. There was no possibility of agreement for purchase under the Act. The Act gave no power to purchase a school. The only agreement was for the use of the school for the purpose of elementary education. The agreement for purchase or hire could only be under Section 19 of the Act of 1870, which was a clause empowering the School Board, and therefore now the county council, to purchase the land. Of course he should bow to the decision of the Lord President, but he doubted whether, under that clause, the county council had any power to purchase a school. They had power to purchase
532
land, but no power to purchase a school, and certainly there was no power under that clause for the owners of a school to disregard their trust and to sell to the local education authority. It was Clause 19 of the Act of 1870 which seemed to be hinted at, or alluded to, by the words—
"An agreement for the purchase or hire of a schoolhouse."
That agreement was not contemplated at all by the Act of 1870. They wanted not only to empower the local authority to purchase, but to give power to the owners of the schoolhouse or the trustees of the schoolhouse to sell to a local education authority in spite of their trusts, and in partial disregard of their trusts. Whether that was the true construction of the Act of 1870 or not, there was no reason for limiting the date by which arrangements might be made for purchase or hire. Therefore he begged to submit to His Majesty's Government that the limitation of date to which he had referred ought to be struck out.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 19, to leave out from the word 'Act' to the word 'or' in line 20."— (Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this is a small matter but rather a complicated one. In reply to the noble Viscount's first question, I think you will see that the arrangement made in pursuance of this part of the Act is provided for by the different dates mentioned in the Act, and that therefore these words, "before the 1st day of January, 1908" only apply to the agreement for the purchase or hire of the schoolhouse, but all arrangements are provided for by Clause 2 and by Clause 9 describing the proceedings 'of the Commission. As regards the agreement for the purchase or hire of the schoolhouse, I do not think the noble Viscount is quite accurate in saying that no schoolhouse may be acquired under Section 19 of the Education Act, 1870, because as a matter of fact they have been, I am informed, so acquired under that Act. I mean as regards taking a lease—that is to say, the hire question—I did not quite understand whether the noble Viscount said

533
that schoolhouses could not be leased, or could not be bought, under that section.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that under that section there was no power to buy a schoolhouse held under trust, because they must entrust the owners to sell, as well as the local authority to purchase. On the other hand there was a clause in the Act of 1870 which was repealed in the schedule to the present Act, and to which he should propose to call their attention. The clause in question gave the largest power of all against purchase, use, or partial use of any sort or kind. He saw no reason, and could imagine no reason, for limiting the date in the manner proposed.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The reason was that we were anxious that these arrangements should be concluded so far as possible within a given time, and that, where the school did not desire to make an arrangement within that period, it might, of course, stand out and become a certified efficient school, but if at a later period it wanted to come in, it would have to come in as a new school, and would not get the advantages of coming in as a transferred voluntary school.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that he had read all these sections with a great deal of attention. Although he was sure the noble Earl was a master of their complication he thought it would be well worth his consideration, and that of those responsible for the drafting of the Act, if they would try and group together the different dates, because really it required a man to be at his best in order to remember all the various dates that were necessarily put in. He quite agreed that there could not be a common date for every purpose, but in this particular instance the date put in was for a rather narrow purpose. He quite agreed with his noble friend that it was too rigid to say not only after the passing of this Act—that was quite right—but a year before 1st January, 1908. He thought that was rather too narrow. At first he had been inclined to think that the words ought to be "After the passing and under the provisions of this Act"; but on
534
reflection he did not think those words would cover the conditions of the noble Earl, and, therefore, he would ask whether the words should not be "the 1st January, 1908, or on such date as may be fixed by''—such authority as the Lord President pleased to name.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked why it was necessary to fix any date at all. They were defining a "transferred voluntary school." A "transferred voluntary school" could be taken over by Section 2, and by Section 9, and there were three ways in which it could be taken over without any arrangement by this clause. In this clause a "transferred voluntary school" was a school continued under an agreement, or an agreement made in continuance of such an agreement, or in pursuance of a scheme made by the Commission. Surely that was an exhaustive settlement of all possible transferred schools, and therefore he did not see why they wanted to put in a date to complicate the matter at all.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Because all the other possible ways of affecting the school, except this one, are provided for by the terms of the Act upon the operation of the Commission. But in this case we think it reasonable that the local authority should know before 1908—subject to the consideration which of course I will give in reply to the question of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench—whether it is likely to have to build a new school or not, and whether a given school is going to be taken over or not, and it certainly seems reasonable that the authority should not be kept indefinitely waiting to know whether a particular school means to come in under an agreement or not. If it does not come in, but stands out for a time, there is no reason why, if it chooses to come in at some indefinite future date, it should not come in in the character of a new school under Clause 6. But as to why a transferred voluntary school is treated in that particular way, if the noble Lord will read Clauses 5 and 6, he will see that the circumstances under which it comes in are rather different.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFpointed out that the Lord President of the Council proposed by the schedule to repeal Section 23 of the Act of 1870, which was the section under which hiring could take place. What would be the position? They had a voluntary school which during 1907 would have no inducement to make an arrangement, because the status quo continued through the whole of 1907, and in 1908 they were no longer empowered to purchase, or agree, or make any arrangement about it. Surely that was not a desirable condition of things.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The reason, as I said just now, is that we did not think it fair to leave the local authority in such a condition of uncertainty as to what schools it might have to build.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that the local authority could occupy it compulsorily for two years as an elementary school.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BARNARDin moving an Amendment providing that the expression "owners" as respects any school-house should include persons in whom an interest in the schoolhouse "or in the school carried on therein" is vested, said he could not help thinking that there was not a very clear comprehension on the part of either the members of their Lordships' Committee or of the public at large as to what the effect of the definition of the word "owners" might be. No doubt the popular idea was that the people who had the making of arrangements for the transfer of these schools were what was popularly known as trustees. But there was a difference between the public comprehension of trustees and the legal definition. As a matter of fact, the persons in whom the "legal estate"—to use a legal phrase —was vested in most of the non-provided schools were persons who in that capacity had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the management of the schools, and the consequence was that it might happen, and very likely would happen, that in some cases the persons who would have to make the arrangements for
536
the transfer of the schoolhouse, or otherwise to deal with the schoolhouse under the Bill when it became law, were persons who had no part or voice whatever in the management of the school. He knew it was a popular idea that in every parish in England there existed a parson, a squire, a church and a mansion house. He knew that was the fact in some parts of England, but it was not so in others. In the County of Durham, in which he lived, far from that being so, the parish in which he resided, which was a very large one, possessed a school which, under the School Sites Acts, was vested in the vicar and churchwardens of the parish. The school was five miles away from the parish church, and served an entirely different district. The churchwardens did not take any part whatever in the management of the school, although the vicar did. The churchwardens were merely trustees for the purpose of holding the legal estate. Therefore he did not see how they could exercise any wise discretion under Clause 2 of the Bill. The vicar and churchwardens, he should mention, were created a corporation for that special purpose by the School Sites Acts, and solely in order that they might hold the land, to save the school being put to constant expense by the appointment of trustees. Some people got over that difficulty by appointing other corporate persons, such as a bishop or archdeacon, as trustees of the schools and in those cases they might not reside within fifty miles of the school and might never come near it. He thought something should be put in so as to ensure not only the people holding the legal estate in the soil, but the persons managing the school, being consulted. The land on which the school was built, and the walls and so forth, were of no use unless there was somebody to manage and control the school, and those persons were, he thought, the persons who ought to have a voice in any transactions under this Bill. He quite admitted that in the present state of affairs it was not easy to say, under the Act of 1902, who really ought to have that voice in this particular case. Many of the managers were to be appointed by the subscribers, and there were now no such subscribers, but at the same time there was a

537
residuum of the managing body left which should be entitled to have a voice in this transaction, and he had therefore ventured to put down the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 31, after the word 'school-house,' to insert the words 'or in the school carried on therein.'"—(Lord Barnard.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The question raised by the noble Lord raises, no doubt, an interesting point as to the proper meaning of "owners" in this connection, or rather, I should say, who are the people who ought to carry on the negotiation with a local authority in the character of owners. Of course it is clear that the expression as described in the Bill could include a ground landlord, or a mortgagee, or anybody who had a proprietary substantial interest in the property. But if the noble Lord's words were included, it seems that a very large number of other persons might be said to have an interest in the school. It would include, I take it, certainly the foundation managers, or other managers as the case might be, it would probably include subscribers, if any, and it might go even further, and include, for instance, the parents of a child who, by winning a scholarship, had become entitled to education in that particular school. Consequently, it seems that an exceedingly inconvenient state of affairs might arise when it came to negotiating with the local authority. We think it very important that in that matter there should be only one consent required. Arrangements of a satisfactory character are far less likely to be reached if a large number of consents—some, perhaps, of people whose interest in the school as carried on might be very slight indeed—had to be obtained to every provision or arrangement. When we were discussing this matter before, I admitted that as what was passing was not so much the bricks and mortar as the use of the school, there seemed to be a considerable case for including the managers in some form or another under this head, and I suggested that it might be possible that the managers of the school,
538
and the trustees, might act together as one body, and carry on negotiations with the local authority. I do not know whether that at all appeals to the noble Lord, or whether he suggests a way in which they could be treated as one body. If he could, I certainly think it would meet the substantial justice of the case; but if not, I certainly do not think we could agree to words so vague as those of the noble Lord, and which, as I say, would admit for purposes of consent in these cases, I would not say an unlimited, but certainly an unknown number of persons.
LORD BARNARDexpressed his obligation to the noble Earl for the courteous way in which he had met the criticisms he had made. Under the circumstances he certainly did not propose to press his Amendment, and he therefore, asked leave to withdraw it. Perhaps the Lord President would see his way to suggest on the next stage of the Bill words giving effect to the offer which he had been good enough to make with a view to meeting his (Lord Barnard's) views.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved an Amendment providing that no child should be reckoned, for the purposes of the provisions of this part of the Act relating to extended facilities "and application by parents to the Board of Education," as a child attending a school unless the child had attended the school with due regularity for at least six months. He said the object of the Amendment which he was about to move was to secure to the parents the right of applying to the Board of Education. For instance, in Clause 5, sub-section (4) it was provided that—
"The parents of at least twenty children attending a transferred voluntary school, if aggrieved by the mode in which extended fatalities are afforded by a local education authority) may appeal to the Board of Education."
If the words in the clause were sufficient to cover all the appeals that the parents might make to the Board of Education, he had no wish to move the Amendment—if the noble Earl thought they were covered by the existing words.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 10, after the word 'facilities' to insert the words 'and application by parents to the Board of Education.'"— (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not make any objection to the insertion of the words if the noble Lord likes to insert them. As the Bill stands, I make no objection.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he would move them at present, and if the noble Earl subsequently thought them unnecessary, he could leave them out.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid the addition, or Amendment, which he had put upon the Paper was to provide for differences between the parents' committee and the local education authority. Differences must necessarily arise. The parents' committee, as their Lordships had now instituted it, had a very delicate duty to perform—namely, the control of the religious instruction given in the schools.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, lines 19 and 20, after the word 'education' to insert the following new subsections, '(6) If any question arises between the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse or the parents' committee of any school as to the use of the schoolhouse or as to the mode in which facilities for religious instruction are afforded, or as to damage (other than fair wear and tear) to the schoolroom or school furniture during the use of the schoolhouse for religious or secular instruction, or as to the appointment or dismissal of teachers, that question shall he referred to the Board of Education, whose decision shall be final, and it shall be the duty of the local education authority and of the owners and parents' committee, to comply therewith. (7) The powers of managers under Section 76 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, shall after the passing of this Act be exercised by the parents' committee elected under this Act'"—(Visconnt Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I point out to the noble Viscount that a very great part of this has already been done. I think he will find in Clause 5 of the Bill that in any question as to the mode in which facilities are carried on,
540
there is an appeal to the Board of Education. If he looks at sub-section (4) he will see that there is an appeal from the parents of twenty children to the Board of Education, and in sub-section (1) preceding that, there is a similar appeal from the owners of the school-house, and I do not know whether he thinks it worth while to ask for a further appeal from the parents' committee.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFthought that the parents' committee would certainly have little points of friction with the local education authority. A hostile authority might interfere with the giving of religious instruction in a way that did not amount to an interference with facilities. The appeal given in sub-section (4) of Section 5 was only against the way in which extended facilities were carried out. He quite agreed that the multiplication of the clauses of appeal was very undesirable, and what occurred to him was that some general clause of appeal should be inserted in that part of the Bill, embracing all the cases given in different parts of the Bill. But whether there was one general clause of appeal, or whether the different matters should be dealt with piecemeal, there should be some clause of appeal to enable the parents' committee to get redress from what they considered undue interference with their control of religious instruction. That appeared to him absolutely necessary. A thousand little points might arise which it would not be worth while to take to the Board of Education—differences of opinion about the way in which the parents' control was exercised, and so on. He would be quite content if some general clause were put in which would consolidate all the different things. What the noble Earl had said turned upon a different case altogether. Sub-section (4) of Clause 5 was meant for the case of a notable body of parents having the control which they had bargained for. The parents' committee wanted some protection in the control which they exercised from day to day, and if the noble Earl would frame some general clause to be inserted at this point it would meet the object which he had in view in bringing forward this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYthought the appeal clauses were a little confused as they stood—he did not say it was the fault of the draughtsman, but he could not say that the Amendment of the noble Viscount made the matter much easier. He observed that he had mixed up the furniture and the wear and tear of the schools with the mode of religious instruction, and he could not think that that particular form of appeal was very desirable. But he thought that the suggestion made was one that the noble Earl might well take into consideration—that was to say, the adoption of a general appeal clause consolidating the various appeal clauses scattered throughout the Bill. There was an appeal clause in Section 3, and another appeal clause in Section 5, and if some general appeal clause were inserted dealing with all these different matters it would make the Bill clearer and probably make the administration of the Act much easier.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that the criticism of his noble and learned friend rather surprised him, because the language used with, which his noble friend found fault was taken from the. Act of 1902, for which the noble and learned Lord was responsible. That was exactly the kind of dispute which would arise. If forms were broken, or some other damage was done during the hour of religious instruction, the parents' committee would be responsible, while, on the other hand, if there were damage done during the hours of secular instruction, the local authority would be responsible. Those were exactly the cases which his noble and learned friend inserted in the Act of 1902, and he had only humbly followed in his footsteps.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that the noble Viscount would forgive him for saying that in the Act of 1902 they were dealing with a particular code which spoke for itself, whereas the noble Viscount now wanted to introduce another set of clauses which did not fit in with those already there.
THE EARL OF CREWE: As regards the question raised by the noble and learned
542
Lord opposite, I have, of course, to ask the Committee to remember that this great multiplicity of appeals was not made with our consent or concurrence, but if noble Lords who desire to see them put in want some technical assistance in putting appeals into shape, I should be very sorry to refuse it so far as I am able to command it. But as regards this particular clause I think it is reasonable enough as the Bill now stands that the parents' committee should have an appeal of this kind, if it is not given to other people. If the noble Viscount will look at sub-section 4 of Clause 5 he will see that the parents have an appeal not merely as to how the extended facilities should be carried out, which was inserted by an Amendment, but also as to the mode in which the extended facilities should be afforded, and perhaps it might be for him to consider whether it is necessary to give the same appeal to the twenty parents and to the parents' committee. But this is a minor point. What I wanted to say is that as far as the parents' committee is concerned it seems reasonable enough, but when these other questions of wear and tear and matters of that kind are mentioned, those undoubtedly ought in most cases to be met in the original agreement as between the parties, with some provision in case of dispute for settlement by arbitration. Things of that sort ought not perpetually to be coming up to the Board of Education, as noble Lords will agree. As regards dismissal of teachers, the noble Viscount will understand that we could not possibly agree to that.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that he had still another Amendment, in regard to sub-section (7). He hoped the noble Earl would see the necessity of making some concession upon that point. Section 76 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 was repealed in the schedule to this Bill. Section 76 was the section which gave to elementary school managers the power of calling in an inspector who was not one of His Majesty's inspectors, but an inspector of a private kind—a private inspector—for the purpose of inspecting the religious instruction given in schools. The most rev. Primate, among others, had pointed out the immense importance

543
of religious instruction, its great value to the elementary school, and its great value to the denominational school. It did harm to no human being, and it seemed to him that the power of having an inspection of that sort ought not to be taken away, so as to secure that the religious instruction given by the parents' committee was thorough and efficient, and according to the intention of the owners of the schoolhouse. Therefore all he suggested under that Amendment was that the powers of the managers under Section 76 of the Act of 1870 should, after the passing of the present Act, be exercised by the parents' committee elected under the Act. The parents' committee, having the responsibility for the religious instruction, and the control of it, ought surely to be allowed to do that which hurt no human being, and at their own expense— that was to say, to call in an inspector to see that the religious instruction given was satisfactory.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Viscount will remember that we have already had some little talk on this subject on the Motion of the Bishop of Winchester, and that at that time I promised to consider the matter with the right rev. Prelate, and we have had some communication with him. I cannot give an answer to the question of the noble Viscount as to transferring the whole powers of the managers under Section 76 to the parents' committee, but if he will withdraw his Amendment I can assure him that we are not losing sight of the matter, and that we will consider it further in the light of what he has said.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: said the noble Earl had alluded to the reply he gave to the right rev. Prelate on 5th November, but on that occasion he the Lord President went further, and said that the Amendment was one towards which the Government also felt a great deal of sympathy. He went on to say that he was uncertain whether it was possible to impose that duty upon the local education authority, as was done in the case of voluntary schools by Section 76 of
544
the Act of 1870. Then he concluded by saying—
"But I can assure the right rev. Prelate that we will take the whole matter into full consideration, and, if he pleases, consult with him as to the best possible method of giving expression to his wishes."
On that understanding another Amendment on one other clause was withdrawn, and while he did not in the least deprecate what the noble Lord had said, he thought they should ask for a time to be stated when he would give clear expression as to how that sympathy was to be shown.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite agree that it went further than sympathy— I said that the clause should, if possible, be arranged with a view to meet the wishes of the right rev. Prelate, and that it should be dealt with at the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, "That Clause 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that before the clause was passed he desired to draw the attention of the noble Earl the President of the Council to its form. It consisted partly of definition and partly of supplementary provision. He believed it was the invariable practice that a definition clause should contain nothing but definitions, and should come last. If the noble Earl would look at the last two lines on page 11, he would see that the paragraph was an injunction on owners of the schoolhouse to furnish information to the local authority. That had nothing whatever to do with definitions. Then came sub-section (5), which said that no child was to be reckoned as attending unless he had attended a certain number of times. Surely, as a matter of arrangement it would be better to have those two paragraphs as separate clauses and to have the definition clause by itself.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I certainly will consult the draughtsman on the point raised by my noble friend opposite, which had not escaped my attention, and if it is found to be better

545
to remodel the clause in that respect it will certainly be done.
On Question, Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:—
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid that the object of this Amendment was to make the clause optional. As the clause stood it read—
"The council of every county shall, subject to the provisions of this section, within two years after the passing of this Act, prepare a scheme for the purpose of delegating "
certain duties. He thought that in those county councils where they had an efficient and well-worked scheme it would be very unfortunate to compel them to break it up. He admitted that it was a little unfortunate that where "shall" appeared in the original text they on that side desired to insert "may," and where there was a "may" they proposed "shall." No doubt, that might be partly due to the atmosphere on the two sides of the House. But many of their Lordships had noticed with some sympathy an expression of the Minister for Education the other day as to the number of "shalls" that had been inserted into the Bill. If his Amendment were carried they would be able to do something to reduce that proportion, and he hoped very much that the Government would see their way to do what he asked, because, while the Amendment did not in any way affect those county councils which wished to adopt the scheme, it did prevent those which had an efficient scheme already working from being compelled to break it up. He would not go into many details, although there was a good deal to be said on the subject, but if they considered for a moment they would remember that the county councils who had adopted schemes had a large staff, competent, and no doubt expensive; they had endeavoured to carry out the requirements of the Act of 1902, and they had been put to a good deal of expense in doing it. The first two years had been expended chiefly in organisation, and after those two years of organisation, and of acquiring experience, they were now beginning to get really the effect of a good educa-
546
tional system. They had included in the staff the director or secretary, architects, and their assistants, who were capable men competent to plan or supervise the erection of new schools, and to prepare specifications for repairs, and to act in many other ways. The result of that was that by having these experienced men they were able to get good workmanship and the value of the money spent. He thought, further, that it would be admitted that it was very desirable that there should be a superintendent of attendance officers in a responsible position who would not be likely to be carried away by any favouritism in particular districts, and who would be able to act with that absolute impartiality which was not possible under small authorities, and be able to secure proper attendances. That being so, and the responsibility having been taken, he would like to know why it was necessary to break up this system. There was no principle involved. There had been no general demand. The ratepayers, if they wanted a scheme, could get it, as the power already existed under the Act of 1902 to submit a scheme if necessary. What would be the result of breaking that system? They would have an increase of expenditure. That was unavoidable. They would have a diminution of efficiency, which he thought was a certain result. They would set up a system of small local schools with imperfect powers and responsibilities, which would be put to great expense in the provision of offices, in the payment of salaries, and in many other ways. There was one point that occurred to him as worthy of particular attention, and that was the question of local interest. Those who had been engaged in education knew that without local interest they could not have a successful system of education, but he did not see how they were going to increase local interest by a delegation of this kind. At the present time local managers did take a local interest, and he did not think that more local interest would be taken if persons were placed as representing one district upon a board representing some ten or eleven other localities. They would get their one manager who was interested in the one school,

547
and all the other managers would be interested in other schools. He did not himself think they would increase the local interest by any delegation of that kind. There was a great deal to be urged in support of the Amendment. He would not like to rely entirely upon his own powers of conviction, but he desired to urge one or two arguments which he thought would appeal to the Lord President of the Council, who had said in another Amendment that the object of inserting "may" instead of "shall" was to consider the whole matter in a friendly spirit with the local education authority. If the word "shall" remained, the Board would have no option, but immediately to make the order on the local authority, and it was just because they knew the kind of influence which the Board of Education and its excellent officers and administrators had with the local education authority and that an authority which made difficulties was infinitely more likely to be brought about by those methods, that they preferred "may" to "shall." It was necessary to remember that the local authorities had, if not always, at any rate within very wide limits, a considerable amount of amour propre in these matters, and, dealing with facts, it seemed to him infinitely more sensible and proper, having given them these great educational powers, to approach thorn in a friendly and conciliatory spirit. He hoped very sincerely that the Government would see their way to accept his Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 23, to leave out ' shall' and insert' may.' "—(The, Earl of Dartmouth.)
LORD HATHERTONhoped that 'the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. He could only speak positively with regard to his own county of Stafford, but there were no doubt many local authorities in other counties who had devoted an immense amount of time to perfecting their educational machinery under the Bill of 1902. It seemed to him extraordinary that where the work of education was being conducted well
548
and efficiently they should revert to the less efficient and the more costly system of school boards. There appeared to be no provision in the Bill for the largo number of clerks who would eventually have to be discharged if this Act passed as it now stood, and he trusted that his noble friend would, if necessary, in the interests of economy and efficiency, press this Amendment to a division.
VISCOUNT CROSSsaid that this was a matter which had very much exercised the county council of Lancashire. Lancashire, as the noble Lord behind him had said, had had for two years a scheme which had worked admirably—not by setting up a new authority, but by delegating part of their powers to a subordinate part of their own authority, and in that delegation they had admitted women by co-option as members of the separate part of their delegated authority. With regard to the proposal in the Bill, that seemed to him to be very unnecessary in those places where the matter had worked with such thorough satisfaction to everybody concerned, and certainly the county council of Lancashire looked with positive dismay to the breaking up of the system which had worked so well, and the setting up of another, as to which they did not know whether it would work well or not. There were one or two points in the plan proposed by the Bill which deserved the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government. In the first place they were setting up another authority where it was not wanted. They were setting up another authority which would require another election. He should have thought that they had quite elections enough. They were giving their representative body, as they called it, certain powers of expenditure without the control of the county council who would have to pay, and he should have thought it was a maxim that all economical persons would insist upon, that those who incurred expenditure should pay it themselves, and that they should not be able to pay out of another person's purse without the control of that other person. Under those circumstances why insist upon these new plans being forced upon every county when they did not want them? His noble

549
friend Lord Hatherton was perfectly right in. saying that in many counties they had schemes which worked perfectly satisfactorily, and, if so, why should they break up the whole thing which had been working now for two years at least, and start a new scheme which would involve great expenditure? It seemed to him that the proposal of the Government was unnecessary, that it would increase the expense, and certainly would not produce any better results than were obtained now, when the county councils had among themselves made these local committees which, as he said, were working so well. He trusted, therefore, that the Lord President of the Council would see his way to meet them upon this matter. It was not a matter concerning the principle of the Bill in any form or shape; it was a matter simply of detail of administration. He had placed on the Paper himself a clause which was drawn up by the county council of Lancashire, but he was not wedded to that particular form. He observed that his noble friend, Lord Belper, had an Amendment to strike out the words "representative bodies" and to insert "local education committees." That entirely met his (Viscount Cross's) point, and he trusted that when they came to discuss it a little further on the Government would see that there was no principle involved which they were bound to maintain, and that in the interests of economy, of well working, and of not disturbing those counties where schemes were now in full operation, and were working thoroughly to the satisfaction of everybody, the noble Earl would see his way at all events to meet them to that extent.
LORD SHUTTLEWORTHsaid that he would probably not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the remarks made by his noble friend Viscount Cross, who had spoken as if the present system of delegation in Lancashire were working to the complete satisfacton of everybody. He had no doubt that the noble Viscount had obtained his information from sources connected with the county council, but perhaps he might say that he was rather more acquainted with some of the more
550
urban districts of Lancashire, where there was a very strong feeling that the administration of the Education Act was too much centred at Preston. Preston was a centre very far removed from many parts of Lancashire which used, under the other system, to have a considerable voice in the administration of education under the old system of school boards, and far from there being this general satisfaction with the extent to which the principle of delegation had been adopted by the county council of Lancashire, there was, he ventured to say, in some of these districts an exceedingly strong feeling that they would like to have a larger voice in the administration of their local affairs, and more power with respect to their schools, than would be given under such an Amendment as the noble Viscount had put upon the Paper, or even under the Amendment in the name of his noble friend Lord Belper. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Dartmouth, had said that he did not see how local interest would be increased by this clause of the Bill. But surely if they gave power of local administration to people in a locality, and if they also gave them the command of a certain amount of money, and if they further gave them power to say—
"If we want a better staff in the school, or anything different from what is general throughout our county, and if we are prepared to pay for it then we can have it? "
—that was the clause as it stood—that, he took it, would be greatly welcomed by his neighbours in the populous districts of Lancashire with which he was familiar. Therefore he ventured to give his very strong support to the clause as it stood. He thought it would be very grievously weakened and would give very great dissatisfaction in Lancashire if, instead of the clause as it stood, they were to pass the clause which the noble Viscount had placed upon the Paper, and he would be rather sorry to see it weakened in the direction suggested by Lord Belper's Amendment. As it had passed the House of Commons it would give satisfaction in the various districts of Lancashire—which really were competent to carry out educational work efficiently— by giving them the opportunity of doing that which they locally desired.
LORD BELPERsaid that as he was responsible for a number of Amendments placed upon the Paper upon this clause by the desire of the County Councils Association, he thought that as the Amendment now before the Committee raised a very important point with regard to the clause, he ought not only to explain clearly what the position of the County Councils Association was with regard to the Amendment, but also, if he might be allowed to do so, to go shortly into what he conceived to be the policy of the clause and what would be the effect of his Amendments if they were passed. He would say at once that the question had given rise to the greatest possible interest in all the County Councils, and that there had been repeated discussions at the County Councils Association with regard to it. Not only that, but the particular Amendment of his noble friend Lord Dartmouth had not been lost sight of in the discussion on the executive of the County Councils Association, and it had been questioned whether or not it would be wise for the County Councils Association amongst their Amendments to suggest such Amendments as had been proposed by his noble friend—the substituting of "may" for "shall," in fact making delegation voluntary instead of compulsory. With regard to that, he might say that after discussion on the executive, although the education committee took a somewhat different view, it was decided without a division that it would not be wise to try and substitute "may" for "shall." He quite admitted, and agreed to the full with the whole of the arguments used by his noble friend and by Lord Hatherton in recommending this Amendment to their Lordships' notice. He gathered that if there was no other consideration to be borne in mind it would be certainly the most convenient and the easiest course for the County Councils Association to have adopted this amendment, because undoubtedly there were several counties which had not wished to make the clause compulsory, and by giving power to every county council all over England to do exactly what they liked as to delegation they would have been meeting the general view possibly even more than by moving the Amendments to which he would have to call
552
their Lordships' attention. But the County Councils Association thought that there were other considerations. They had been to some extent in communication with the Education Department with regard to the matter, particularly with regard to the withdrawal of the former clause which they considered from their point of view to be an absolutely impossible clause. When a clause had been brought forward in the House of Commons —as they understood, by the general desire of a large number of Members—they had felt that it would not perhaps be the wisest course for a public body representing the whole of the counties to put in a non possumus at the very beginning to the proposal which they made to have delegation over all the counties in England. They felt that it would perhaps be better in point of policy not to take exception to the word "shall," but rather to put into Amendments what they considered were the only conditions on which they could accept a delegation clause. That point was of the greatest possible importance to county councils. The more the question had been discussed on the County Councils Association, and the more fully he had heard in this House the opinions of noble Lords who came from all parts of England, the more fully he was convinced that it would be perfectly impossible to draw a clause which would enable every county council to set up delegation authorities of the most satisfactory and efficient character unless they gave the greatest possible latitude with regard to the constitution of those authorities; and it was because they felt that, and felt it so strongly, that they thought it desirable to put in the foreground of their proposal that if any delegation clause was to pass, the greatest possible latitude and elasticity ought to be given to county councils not only in the constitution of their committees, but in the powers which were to be delegated to the different authorities. The principal part of his Amendment dealt with that point. They had not the least wish to set up any objection to the particular manner of constituting delegated authorities set up in the Bill. There were three different modes selected. One was a body which

553
was practically a body elected ad hoc by the ratepayers. The second was a delegated authority —it might be a local government area where that wars possible or an urban council or a large parish. The third was a body to be constituted in some remarkable manner, because it might be composed of members of councils, of local government areas appointed by those councils, and other additional members to be nominated. He did not wish to say anything about the principle of those Amendments, but what the County Councils Association felt was that while that might be very desirable under certain circumstances, there were parts of most counties which world not fulfil the conditions laid down—that care should be taken in constituting bodies so as to ensure both efficiency and economy. He ventured to think, therefore, that if any general opinion of the county council was to be consulted, the only possible way of doing it was to give more elasticity than at present appeared in the provisions of the clause under consideration. There was one other point he would like to refer to which had been already touched on by several speakers who had addressed the House. The question of Lancashire had come to the front, and he was bound to say he did not feel competent to enter, nor had he the slightest intention of entering, into the contest as to whether the present scheme adopted in Lancashire was a satisfactory one for the county or not. But it was the full intention of the Amendment he intended to move—and he believed it was fully carried out by the Amendment—that such schemes as had been in force and had been satisfactory in the past should be continued, because the authority would have the power of constituting those local bodies in whatever way they thought most desirable under their schema, and therefore subject to any particular provisions in the clause which had to be made in order to guard against any body being constituted which was not acceptable to the different districts and divisions of the county, they could constitute their new authorities under this Act in the same way as the other authorities of which they approved had been constituted before. His Amendment fully intended to
554
carry that out. He knew there was a very great amount of interest taken on this point not merely in Lancashire but in many important counties, representatives of which had come to him asking him that whatever Amendments were passed in their Lordships' House should specially guard that point— counties like Essex, Chester, Stafford, and many others. He thought the schemes which had been already in force would be continued in a much more satisfactory manner if they were continued under the management which he proposed, because then they would be schemes under the present Act, and would have the additional powers given under the present Act of spending money which before had not been delegated. He was not moving his Amendments now, and therefore did not propose to go into any great detail with regard to them. But there was one part on which he would like to lay some stress, and that was that they did not wish that these delegated authorities should necessarily be uniform with regard to the powers given to them. Sub-section (3) said that—
"the provisions of the scheme as to the powers and duties delegated, and as to the charging of expenses, shall be uniform as respects all the delegation areas in the county."
He could not help thinking that while that prevented elasticity, it would also have the effect of preventing delegation to a very large extent; because where they had an authority in which they had great confidence—where they had men in a district who had been taking a great interest in education, and had, perhaps, been useful members of the school board before—they had full confidence in giving them very much larger powers than in the case of a small authority in a country district where it would be difficult to get anybody who took an interest in education, and where, if it was necessary to constitute educational authorities, they would, at all events, like to act tentatively, and not give at once the larger powers which might be given eventually. He trusted that whatever might be the opinion of the House with regard to the question of whether they should impose compulsion, or allow the counties voluntarily to undertake delegation powers when they wished

555
it, at all events the Government would see their way to meeting what was the universal wish, he might say, of the counties as represented on the County Councils Association—that they should have a very large power in constituting those authorities. Mr. Birrell, in a speech the other day, had dwelt with some eloquence upon the necessity of trusting the education authorities and the county councils of the country. He knew that in that speech Mr. Birrell referred to other parts of the Bill to which he (Lord Belper) had no intention of making any reference at the present time; but if there was any matter with which a county council ought to be entrusted, it was the administration of their own county, as to which they must know better than Parliament what was good for them, and concerning which, even if powers were given to the Education Board, they could not carry them out half so effectively as those who had lived in the county and had taken an active part in the work of education for so many years. Mr. Birrell had used one more argument. It was this—
"If you are going to impose hard and stringent regulations with regard to the constitution of those bodies which the county councils do not willingly accept, depend upon it, your delegation work will move very slowly indeed; because if they are suspicious and have not confidence that their bodies as constituted will work efficiently, they will be very loth to give them any enlarged powers; and therefore, the more you trust county councils in this matter, the more smoothly, I fancy, you will find a delegation scheme is likely to work, and being able to constitute bodies in the way they desire, they will have confidence in giving them a large share of the details of work of the education of the county."
Personally he had always been in favour of some system of delegation, for the reason that he thought that if they could carry out delegation consistently with ensuring efficiency and economy they would recruit a larger number of useful men from different parts of the county to assist the education committee in the work they had to do. And more than that, if they had any difficulties, and had to go to the county councils with regard to expenses or other matters of that sort, they had at their back a large number of men conversant with the way in which the
556
work was being done, they would have broadened the basis upon which the education committee stood, and they would have more confidence, and get more support in carrying out the very difficult work in which they were engaged. In conclusion, he would only say with regard to his position in reference to this Amendment that if the Government could give an assurance that they would accept the Amendments which he had to move, he would not then be able to vote in favour of "may" being inserted instead of "shall"; but, if, on the other hand, no such assurance could be given, they must protect themselves in whatever way they could, and he should then support the Motion moved by his noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that they had had a very interesting discussion upon the Amendment raised by his noble friend behind him. It was a somewhat difficult task to decide who was right in the matter, because some noble Lords behind him, who were familiar with all the work in their own councils, to a certain extent differed between themselves as to what was delegated and what was not delegated. The speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down must have carried great weight, because he spoke on behalf of a very large and very important body, and he (the Marquess of Londonderry) found some difficulty in rising to speak after him, because he was quite without that experience himself. Nor did he rise to give his own opinion, but rather for the purpose of saying that a short time ago he had received a deputation from Yorkshire, the members of which told him that they were an important deputation inasmuch as they represented the West Riding District Councils' Association. It might save trouble if, instead of narrating what they had told him, he read out the notes which he had taken on that occasion. He might say that it was a purely private meeting. The deputation in question had told him that the District Councils of the West Riding were very dissatisfied with the Education Committee of the West Riding as regarded the action taken in the delegation

557
of education administration. Then they went on to say that at a public conference of the West Riding District Councils the following resolution was unanimously adopted (and they had assured him that it was a very large gathering absolutely unconnected with politics of any sort or kind)—
"That this Association is of opinion that the administration of the Education Act by the West Riding Education Committee is costly, inefficient, and irritating, and demands the delegation of greater freedom and larger powers to a properly constituted local committee."
Then they went on to say further that the West Riding Education Committee set up sub-committees and invited local men to serve on them, but they said they had no powers and they could not get the best men in the district to serve. They further stated that all the powers were centred in the officials, whose acts were subsequently ratified by the county committee. Then they said that the good local men resigned, and that educational efficiency diminished as a consequence, They added that the West Riding District Councils' Association wanted compulsory delegation of reasonable powers to the smaller authorities, and that they objected to sub-section (a) on the ground that a multiplicity of local authorities was undesirable. They also urged that as many district councils had education committees to deal with higher education, the additional duties as regards elementary education might be given to them. They further said that the overlapping and waste of money caused by multiplicity of local authorities was shown on an accompanying memorandum (with which he need not trouble their Lordships) dealing with educational matters in certain parishes in the West Riding. He had merely quoted that, because he thought it was his duty to do so, having received a deputation from such an important body as the West Riding District Councils' Association. Turning to the Amendment of his noble friend, he would say that Lord Cross, representing as he did so truly the people in Lancashire, had stated that in that county an entirely different point of view was taken. To his mind it depended very much upon what was the feeling of the county council or of the local
558
authority. If, as he ventured to think, in the West Riding it was perhaps not so friendly (he did not wish to say any-thing harsh about the views of school managers and owners) as in Lancashire, then perhaps the district councils which had appealed to him were perfectly justified in the statement that they made; and if they turned again to Lancashire (they knew that the county councils there, as in many other counties, were perhaps more favourably disposed to the local authorities), then a totally different state of things occurred. He offered no opinion whatever upon it. It was a subject upon which his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition would probably speak; he had merely spoken in order to show the difficulty that must arise at the present moment owing to the totally different views held by different counties in England.
LORD RIBBLESDALEentirely agreed with the last observation which had fallen from the noble Marquess as to the extraordinary number of different opinions upon the Education Bill. He did not think anybody would dissent from that proposition. On this particular matter it was a case of quot homines tot sententiœ. He only rose for a moment or two, because ho happened to live in the West Riding, and also to be manager of a voluntary school in the West Riding. He understood the noble Marquess to say that a deputation (of whose proceedings he had given their Lordships an almost verbatim report), had waited upon him, and that one of their contentions was that under the Act of 1902 all sorts of complications had arisen, and that the complaint of the local subdivisions in the West Riding was that they had no power. He had just been conducting a correspondence as the Chairman of his board of managers for the purpose of pointing out to the West Riding County Council that the local committee in his part of the world had so much power that all the interest was taken away from the mangers. He only advanced that, not as an illuminant of this question, but merely to throw a little additional darkness on the general gloom in which noble Lords had succeeded in investing an already complicated Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this clause is not a controversial one in the sense in which so many clauses of this Bill have been controversial, but I am not sure that it yields to any in importance, and the subject with which it deals yields to none, I think, in difficulty and complexity. That has been abundantly evident, not merely from the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down, and of the noble Marquess opposite, but also from the fact (as they have very fairly pointed out), that previous speakers entitled to give an opinion with greater authority differ widely as to the proper method of dealing with this particular question. It is known to all the Committee that in this matter we do not start with a clean slate. If we did our task would not have been nearly so difficult. But the existence of some sort of what I may call, without any disrespect, irregular delegation which has taken place under Section 17 of the Act of 1902, of course adds greatly to the difficulty of dealing with the subject as a whole. Under that section, which: as your Lordships are aware, allows the constitution of a separate education committee for any area within a county, and also permits county councils to delegate to any committee any of their powers except the raising of rates, or the borrowing of money, very various action has been taken. Some counties, such as Lancashire and three or four others I could name, have instituted very elaborate schemes of delegation, and although, as my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth pointed out, the action taken by those counties — the arrangements which they have made for their committees —have not met with universal approbation, at the same time everybody must realise that a great deal of most valuable work has been done under those committees, that a great number of people have given ungrudgingly, and most honourably, a vast amount of time and trouble to the public service, and on those grounds any representations made by those who are entitled to speak for those committees, deserves and must receive very respectful consideration indeed.
In the whole of this matter one has to bear in mind that there are two entirely
560
different schools of thought for dealing with subjects of this kind. People look at the matter from two diametrically opposite points of view. There is one class of persons who, if I may say so, worship the expert, who think that it is exceedingly important that so far as possible, education should be managed by people who are, if not experts in education, at any rate mainly and principally interested in education, and that so far as possible all the arrangements and powers which can be exercised by a county should be left to them. They are at one end of the scale. At the other end of the scale are a class of people who rather despise experts, but adore the principle of popular representation, and who consider that, speaking generally, it is safe to ignore the specialist in this matter, and that if you can leave things to elected bodies, even though they are not elected for this special purpose, even though here and there they may make mistakes and may show a lack of interest, yet, sooner or later they will learn wisdom in these particular matters and develop an interest; and that it is to the public advantage that to them, and them alone, should powers of that kind be entrusted. His Majesty's Government desire, I think, to strike a mean between those two extreme views. We cannot ignore the central fact, that where public money is to be spent, it must be spent by bodies, at any rate mainly representative. On the other hand, we are not at all disposed to ignore the value of the services of specialists, and of people who, in particular localities, are willing to give—even if not specialists in the direct sense—special attention to, and to take a special interest in, the work of education, and we are desirous that, so far as possible, their services should be utilised. The Amendment which we have before us on the Paper (although I am very glad that the discussion has taken a general line, because it is certainly a convenience to the Committee that it should have done so) is that of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Dartmouth, to strike out the word "shall" and insert the word "may." As my noble friend reminded us, it is a relief from one point of view to see rather fewer "shalls" and

561
rather more "mays" in the Bill, but on the other hand, in this particular instance we feel obliged to adhere to the more peremptory term. We object to the word "may," not so much because it would leave out counties which have made schemes which, though varying in merit, ought I think to be, spoken of as good schemes; but because it also leaves alone backward counties who have not shown what we consider to be a proper interest in this question, and who if the word "may" were inserted, would be absolved from any necessity of taking any steps at all in this direction. That fact alone to my mind condemns the word "may." It is quite possible, as I hope to show later on, that some part at any rate of the object which the noble Lord has in view in using the word "may" might be achieved in a different way, but so far as the word "may" is concerned, we cannot agree to it, because we desire that every county should be brought to a due sense of its duty in this matter, and that whatever it may have done in the past, it should in the future be obliged to produce some scheme or other for the purpose of delegating powers as defined by the section.
As regards the existing schemes—of which I certainly do not desire to speak at all deprecatingly—they do undoubtedly suffer from one point of view from the fact that these local committees have no direct power of spending money. As a matter of fact I take it (subject to anything which I may hear to the contrary from this Committee) that a great many of them do spend money, and a great deal of money, and that they are tacitly allowed to do so simply because the volume of work which comes before the education committee of the larger county councils is so great that it is not possible for them really to look into the expenditure which these committees, although they do not technically make the expenditure, yet ask to have made. That is to say, that they send up requisitions involving the spending of money, and those requisitions are passed in a great many cases practically without examination by the spending authority, the county council, If that is so, I think that cannot
562
be regarded as a very satisfactory state of things. I think it would be a great deal better if, as provided by us (I quote the words of Section 2)—
"Where powers and duties are delegated to a representative body under a scheme made in pursuance of this section, the county council shall charge on the area for which the representative body acts, the whole or some proportion of the expenses of carrying out the powers and duties delegated."
That is to say, that these people would have distinct power of spending money, and they would have really the direct responsibility for the way in which money was spent. The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, spoke perhaps, as I thought, hardly fairly of the proposed clause, as setting up a' number of small school boards. It is perfectly true that under paragraph (a) of sub-section (4) an ad hoc body of the nature of a school board might be appointed if the county council desired it; but I have no reason to suppose, or to believe, that county councils, as a rule, if they desire to set up ad hoc bodies, would desire to set up particularly small ones of the nature of these school boards, as to the faults of which we are all, I think, generally agreed. The noble Earl ignored the two alternatives particularly proposed under paragraph (c) which give powers to compose a body of an entirely different kind, containing a very considerable nominated element. The noble Viscount, Lord Cross, asked "Why multiply authorities at all?" The multiplication of authorities is, as the noble Viscount is quite aware, simply due to the desire to give them some control over the power of the purse. If you are going to give your committees, or bodies, or whatever you like to call them, some power over the money spent, they must as we say, have a representative character, and consequently you must either use an existing representative body, perhaps with some addition of nominated members, or have a body elected for that purpose. My noble friend Lord Belper spoke from a somewhat different point of view from that of the noble Earl Lord Dartmouth. He, I think, evidently realises the advantage that it is to county councils to come under a clause of this form, and not to be left merely to exercise their powers under Section 17

563
of the Act of 1902. He says, I think, that the powers which they have exercised in the past (and which, as I must remind the Committee, they will still, if they wish it, be able to exercise in the future under that section of the Act of 1902) do nor give these committees precisely the status which we should desire them to have, and that bodies appointed under this clause will hold, I think, a distinctly higher position in the life of the county, and in addition, as the noble Lord pointed out, will have the further interest in the local management which is given by some responsibility in regard to public funds. I do not attempt to follow the noble Marquess opposite into the point that he raised about the West Riding, because I am not really acquainted with the circumstances under which the particular complaint was made to him, and although I was for many years a member of that county council I am so no longer, and consequently I have no special knowledge on. which to deal with the point raised by the noble Marquess. I am obliged, however, to point out to my noble friend Lord Belper, when he touches upon his Amendment, that the important Amendment which stands in his name allowing the county council practically to make its own scheme—
"Every scheme shall specify the constitution and, if necessary, the mode of election of the local education Committees, and the powers and duties to be delegated to them"—
opens up considerable difficulties on this very same question of the limitation of money-spending powers to representative bodies. Under his plan the county council might delegate its authority to a body which might have a very large majority of members who could not in any sense be said to be representative. I conclude that under those circumstances the noble Lord would not expect or intend that those bodies should have the power of spending money which is permitted to the bodies to be appointed under the Bill as it stands. On the further question of the uniformity of the powers and duties, and the charging of expenses, to which the noble Lord objects, I think it is true, to some extent, that so far as the powers and duties are concerned, it seems, on the face
564
of it, reasonable that different powers and duties should be permitted in different areas according as those areas are more educationally advanced, more generally progressive in their view, whereas, in the case of others, it might not be wise to entrust them with those powers. But I think the noble Lord will see that you must read the words "powers and duties" with the words "charging of expenses." Duties practically means expenses, and if you are going to have a different scale of expenditure permitted in these different areas, I am afraid that you will find that you will complicate your local accounts—at least, that is undoubtedly the opinion, as I know, of a great many local people concerned with finance. You will complicate them in a most remarkable degree, and although we quite admit that in insisting upon this rather rigid uniformity we are doing something which we would rather not do, yet of the two it is a lesser evil than might arise from allowing a great deal of different expenditure in different areas under the same local authorities. The noble Lord said that if it were possible for us to hold out any hope of some modification of this clause, he would be disposed not to support the Amendment of the noble Earl Lord Dartmouth, but otherwise he might feel constrained to vote for it. It appears to me that it is possible to suggest some modification in one or two of the cases mentioned in sub-section (4); but I am obliged to ask the noble Lord whether he can suggest some modification in paragraph (c) which would make it more agreeable to him, and which in his opinion would to some extent meet the views of such counties as Lancashire, Cheshire, and others, whose views have been put forward in relation to the original scheme. If my noble friend could suggest some modification, either by supplying a somewhat larger nominated proportion (provided, of course, that the representative members had a substantial majority) or by, in some ways, modifying the words in the first line of paragraph (c), so as to enable it to be made quite clear that the members of the county council for the district should in each case have a seat on this body, we should certainly be disposed to consider favourably some Amendment of that kind,

565
But I am afraid there is no chance of our being able to accept the very wide Amendment of my noble friend, practically, as I say, allowing the county councils to specify the constitution of these committees and the powers and duties committed to them, without giving any guide in the Bill. I think it is by no means impossible to modify it by some means so that those who have hitherto given so much time to this work should not undergo the real chagrin—and, as I think, to them very real loss—of being told that their services are no longer required. That is a point which I confess appeals to me very greatly, and my impression is that if paragraph (c) were modified in some such direction as I have indicated, by very far the greater proportion of those who have hitherto served on these more or less informal committees would find themselves members of bodies composed under that sub-section. But I think if that were done it would be found that by far the greater part of the councils would agree to drop their present schemes, which noble Lords must always remember they are not obliged to do, because they can carry on their present schemes if they please. But of course we have no desire to see two schemes running concurrently— quite the contrary—and I have every hope that if that paragraph (c) were enlarged in the manner which I have endeavoured to point out, at any rate the very great majority of counties would agree to fall into line by altering their present schemes to some extent, and forming bodies which would have the increased powers which we propose to give them, and at the same time would contain most of those valuable members who, as I have said, have in the past given such good work to the objects of education.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHthought that many of their Lordships must be in sympathy with the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Dartmouth. It would be a pity, and he was afraid a hardship, to interfere too much with county councils on this point, especially if they had already got a scheme in thoroughly good order, though perhaps not quite on the lines of this Bill, and in that way he thought there was much to be said in favour of making the power permissive instead
566
of mandatory. On the other hand, he would have some difficulty in following his noble friend into the division lobby, supposing that he chose to press his Amendment. There was the general question of overloading this Bill with Amendments which were not vital—which was, he thought, an important consideration—and there was also the fact that if it were entirely permissive some of the counties might avoid this delegation of authority altogether, which perhaps would be going rather too far. He confessed he should not quite so much mind the mandatory nature of the clause if it could be so modified as to avoid hardship. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had pointed out (and he threw out one or two suggestions as to the way in which the difficulty might be met), it had occurred to him (Lord Zouche) that in some ways the difficulty might be met by sub-section (6), which came a little later in the clause, and was a saving proviso, saying that where a county council had shown the education authority that there were special circumstances in their county they might make a report to the Board of Education to that effect. That, he thought, would cover the fact of their having already a scheme in operation which was giving general satisfaction. Then if the Board of Education thought that that met their view, and if it was sufficiently in accordance with the Act —though not with the exact lines of it— they might release that county from the obligation of making a scheme under this particular section. But the clause was rather hampered by a certain population limit as to which he was afraid he might have a word to say later on, and he did not propose therefore to go into it now. But he would like to urge strongly that the utmost jealousy should be exercised with regard to the powers of spending money by these small bodies. It seemed to him that that was one of the great blots upon many schemes of education, and certainly upon this one. They gave sweeping powers to small bodies who could not in every case be said to be properly representative in the true sense of the word, and who very often did not take sufficient care of what they were doing. If they were

567
allowed to incur expenditure and to send in a bill to the county council to be paid (and, as the noble Earl the President of the Council had justly remarked, such bills too often were paid without proper care being taken), he thought it would sometimes lead to the most disastrous results, because there could be no doubt that there were certain people who looked upon complicated schemes of education, where there were almost unlimited powers of spending money, rather as a means of enriching themselves, or of self-aggrandisement quite foreign to the general intention of the measure. It was always a great temptation to people of that kind, when there were schemes involving the employment of lawyers, builders, surveyors, architects, and such like, to serve their own purposes. Therefore, in such cases, the money spent would not tend to further the proper cause of education, but would simply tend to the aggrandisement of such people. That was a danger that ought to be most carefully watched and guarded against. But as to the Amendment of which they were immediately speaking, although one sympathised very much with the noble Lord, it might be a question whether it, was worth pressing to a division—always supposing that the Amendments of his noble friend Lord Belper and others were given most careful consideration in order to try and elucidate this most complicated matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I would venture to support the speech of my noble friend behind me. I, for one, am reluctant to vote with my noble friend the Earl of Dartmouth, who, by a stroke of the pen, makes this extremely important section permissive instead of mandatory. I feel that the more, because we have still to deal with the series of Amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Belper. Those we shall discuss presently. And I gathered from the noble Earl, the Lord President, (because we were in fact touching upon the ground covered by Lord Belper's Amendments), that he was prepared in reference to one part of the clause before us—I mean sub-section 4, paragraph (c)— to propose himself words intended to
568
meet, to some extent at all events, the points raised by Lord Belper. I do not know whether we were right in understanding that the Lord President would himself bring up words, and, if so, we should like to know at what stage he would be prepared to do so; but in the meanwhile, I venture to suggest that my noble friend, Lord Dartmouth, might not press his Amendment to a division.
THE EARL OF CREWE: To reply at once to the noble Marquess, I do not think I said that I would bring up Amendments myself, but that I would be prepared to consider them and to think over them and hereafter indicate what form in my view the Amendment should take.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid that he would like to put one question which he hoped would not be considered out of order. In the last two lines of page 12, occurred the words—
"Without prejudice however to any power of delegation (otherwise than by scheme) under any other Act."
He thought those were words the meaning of which probably very few people in the House exactly understood, but he believed that in many counties there were good schemes of delegation now in existence, and he would like to ask the Lord President of the Council whether they were to understand that those words were intended to make it plain that all existing schemes of delegation might go on side by side with the new schemes of delegation under the clauses of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The answer to my noble friend is a very simple one. It is perfectly true that those lines—
"Without prejudice however to any power of delegation (otherwise than by scheme) under any other Act"
apply to the powers which I mentioned just now, which exist under the Act of 1902 and to the schemes which have been made subject to those powers. Therefore, as this clause stands it would be perfectly competent for a county council to carry on its existing scheme; it would be obliged also to prepare some scheme for a representative body under the Act; but the two could be concurrent. That I think would not be

569
on the whole a very satisfactory state of things, and therefore if we are able to arrive at some kind of eirenicon which the county councils who have those schemes were able to accept, it would certainly, I think, tend to a more satisfactory method of administration than if they carried on the schemes which are at present in operation under the Act of 1902.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHconfessed that, after what had passed, he did not anticipate very much support to his Amendment, but he was at the same time a little disappointed, "because he had hoped that the discussion would have at all events cleared the atmosphere and solved the difficulties which existed. It did not, however, appear to have done so. In withdrawing his Amendment he would like to reserve to himself the right of reviving it at a future stage if the arrangements suggested between the President of the Council and Lord Belper did not quite satisfy the objects he (Lord Dartmouth) had in view, because so far as he understood at present that arrangement did not embody at all what he wanted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHwished particularly to point out that the County Councils Association considered, and considered with a good deal of favour, putting in an Amendment similar to that of the noble Earl, but they felt that there was throughout the entire country some very strong feeling that the powers entrusted to the county councils were somewhat too centralised, and that some form of delegation was demanded, and that was their reason for not persevering with an Amendment similar to the one now before the Committee. If, therefore, it was withdrawn at the present moment——
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I must point out that there is no question now before the Committee.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Amendment has not been withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I beg your pardon; I put it to the Committee and it was withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I certainly wanted to say a few words before it was withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I may perhaps shorten the discussion by saying that there is no question that the noble Earl or anybody else has a perfect right to reopen the matter on Report if he wishes to do so. Even if we wished to prevent that being done we have no power to do so.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved an Amendment to omit "representative body" and to insert "local education committee." He said that this was one of the numerous Amendments which it was necessary to insert in the clause unless the Government were going to adhere strictly to every one of these bodies being representative. He had no particular affection for the words in his Amendment, but he wanted to make it clear that the Board of Education would not be precluded from entering into a scheme if the bodies were not representative bodies. Of course, this raised to some extent the whole question of the clause, as to whether the three divisions (a), (b), and (c) were to stand as in the Bill, or whether they were to be amended either in the way he proposed or in some other way. As far as they stood in the Bill they were to be representative bodies, but if they were modified in any way so as to include other bodies they would not strictly come under the denomination of representative bodies, and some such Amendment as his would be necessary. Before he spoke on the general question he would like to know how far the Government were prepared to go with regard to this particular Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'representative body' and to insert the words 'local education committee."—(Lord Belper.)
LORD FITZMAURICEthought the Committee would agree that the discussion they had had upon the earlier Amendment had been one of the most interesting and important during the course of these

571
debates, and they were certainly greatly indebted to the noble Lord for the manner in which he had brought the views of the County Councils Association, with which he was so intimately connected, before the Committee. The Government could not go the whole length of his noble friend's Amendment, but they hoped to be able to go far in the direction which he desired. It was a matter of principle with the Government that these bodies must possess a preponderating representative element whether they were composed of the representatives of county councils or of parish councils. The Lord President of the Council would, no doubt, be able at a later stage to put words on the Paper showing the exact character of the proposals of the Government.
The matters that were to be delegated by the county council to the subordinate body must be and should be matters of comparative detail, and not strictly matters of what might be called high county administration. He himself had often been charged in the parts in which he lived with being over-anxious to centralised things in the county council—a charge which he had always repudiated— and it was a novel situation to find himself now charged, as a member of the Government, with a desire entirely to destroy county administration. That would be a very great disaster indeed, and he had no fear that anything of the kind would result from the clause. The duties of the county council would be so enormously increased under the Bill that the necessity of delegation would become infinitely greater; and even after the Act had been brought fully into operation the mass of county council education work would still be very great indeed. Therefore, noble Lords who were nervous that under the clause the importance of county councils would be diminished might go to bed with light hearts. There must be some financial responsibility placed on the delegation body and the delegation area. In the clause in the Bill the Government had carefully provided against the risk of the delegation body and area being able to play ducks and drakes with county money supplied irrespective of adequate control, for it was an essential part of their scheme that if a locality desired to exercise these powers they must be prepared to pay some part of the cost beyond a fixed sum. But if this finan-
572
cial responsibility was to be placed on the delegation area the body in that area must have a preponderatingly representative character. Experts and co-opted members must be in subordinate numbers, the representative element having the prerogative voice. The Government could not accept any Amendment which would violate that principle. They were anxious to maintain the authority and dignity of county councils in large and essential matters, but they must always remember that, except in the very small counties, the distances which people had to travel to the county town were very great, and that if a considerable portion of the time of those who formed the county committee and sub-committee was taken up with an enormous quantity of trifling details, they would not have the necessary time to give to the great and important and essential matters on which the efficiency of the administration and the amount of the expenditure really depended. He had in his own county seen immense agenda papers where whole pages had been taken up with proposals relating to such questions as whether a caretaker should have a salary of so many shillings a week or so many shillings plus a few pence more. Ho did not admit that the county councils had broken down under the work—they had not, but few who had not been actively concerned in this work could realise the enormous strain there had been and the sacrifice of time and labour. They wished, if possible, to relieve that immense strain. He desired to speak with the greatest respect of the proposals of Viscount Cross, both, because of his admitted authority and because his proposals had behind them the high authority of the clerk of the county council of Lancashire, Mr. Harcourt Clare. But Lancashire was in many respects a very exceptional county. There was no county in England which suffered so much from having a great number of entirely independent urban areas, or areas almost entirely independent of the county, "punched out" from its administrative surface. There were more county boroughs and partially independent urban districts and boroughs in Lancashire than in any other county in England, and a scheme such as had been suggested, under which very large and general powers would be given to the district committees in all these

573
areas, which in some cases were almost entirely cut off from one another, might work and be necessary in Lancashire, although it would not work and was not necessary in other counties. That was one of the reasons why the Government could not accept the proposed new clause standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, and he was glad the noble Viscount did not intend to press it. On this question there had been a great deal of difference of opinion among those whose point of view was the same. But the Amendments proposed by the Government on the original clause showed how anxious they had been to find a genuine solution for the question. They regarded this clause as one of the moat important in the Bill.
LORD BELPERsaid that he could not understand why this Amendment was not accepted by the Government on the condition that words were inserted to ensure that, wherever spending power was given, the representative element should be preponderant. There would be many cases where the local committees would be given such powers as the Government contemplated, without the power of spending money. This latitude was necessary to secure efficient administration. For instance, the clause itself mentioned that the county council should charge on the area the whole or some proportion of the expenses of carrying out the powers and duties delegated, or any amount of those expenses which exceeded some specified sum or limit. If they gave a subordinate body a power to spend a specified sum they would have no independent powers of expenditure whatever. They could be given a certain sum for certain purposes, and as long as they did not exceed that sum and used it for the purposes intended there was no reason why they should be called representative bodies. He could not understand why they should be tied down to specially representative bodies. He knew that there were. Members in the other House who were anxious for the ad hoc principle of representation. The fact was they wanted to get back to the old system of school boards, although, of course, the powers given would not be as large as the powers exercised by the old school boards. He admitted that a number of the late school boards were extremely competent bodies and exercised their functions
574
admirably, but there were many eases of school boards in small country districts whose schools on being taken over were found to be the most inefficient and the most extravagant in the county. It was to avoid being forced to constitute bodies which they knew would not be efficient, and which they did not think would be able to administer the Education Act in a satisfactory manner, that they had suggested to His Majesty's Government that this latitude should be given with regard to the constitution of these bodies. He would venture to ask whether, after what he had said, the Government could not see their way to grant this latitude, if they, on their part, consented to some clause which would provide that in the case of the spending of money there should be a majority of representatives of the ratepayers on the particular body.
LORD HARRISadded a hope that the noble Earl the Lord President would find himself able to meet Lord Belper in this matter. As he read the Bill the clauses which the Government had themselves inserted were ample protection for the ratepayers. There was secured to the local education authorities complete control over any powers of expenditure that might be delegated to the local committees. The Lord President of the Council had referred to some county councils as not having done their duty as regards delegation, and he could not help thinking that the noble Earl had been referring to the county of Kent.
THE EARL OF CREWE: No, I was not.
LORD HARRISsaid that anyhow it was applicable to the county of Kent. But he did not agree that that county had not done its duty. They had the most crystallised system of centralisation there. The education authority had delegated the whole of their powers to the education committee, and everything was controlled at headquarters by that committee. He admitted that this had resulted in a good deal of grumbling in the county, and that certain people who were only too glad to do work under the old system, and wanted to continue it under the new body, had had their powers cribbed, cabined, and confined to some extent. As inevitably followed from a centralised system, there had grown up a large staff of clerks. One of the

575
results was that a great number of forms had to be filled up by schoolmasters or managers, as the case might be, and that had caused grumbling. But he was certain that the centralisation had led to a most economical system which would have beneficial effects for a long time to come. He was also equally certain that the pressure for delegation, which was very strong at first, and was gradually becoming weaker, would not have ceased, and they would have been compelled, sooner or later, to do exactly what the noble Earl wanted them to do under this Bill—delegate some of their powers; and they would have had to do so for more than one reason, not only from an anxiety to employ their friends in the district in this work, but also from the fact that the central authority would have broken down under the pressure of work that was being sent up to headquarters. As Lord Belper and the Government were so near an agreement, and as the Bill afforded ample protection for the ratepayers, he thought it should be possible to find a via media.
VISCOUNT CROSSsuggested that the matter might be easily arranged. Everybody agreed that if public money was to be spent, it must be spent by a representative body. They could take that as an axiom. He was quite sure that noble Lords opposite were not aware of what really did happen in the county of Lancashire. It had been rather suggested that the accounts of the local committees were not carefully examined before the money was paid. If the matter was inquired into it would be found that the real state of affairs was quite different. The greatest possible care was taken that the money was wisely expended. Why did they want a second representative body, who were to have power to spend money but would not have to find the money? They would be placing that body in a most anomalous position. He did not particularly care how the committee was constituted, but why have the trouble of another election? The county council was the representative body and responsible to the ratepayers. The county council might be secured in the superintendence of expenditure and the trouble and expense of another election might be obviated.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The proposal of the noble Viscount who has just sat down would really amount to leaving matters where they are. He desired that the whole question of the expenditure of money should be left to the county council, and tinder those circumstances the delegation would not differ, so far as I am aware, from that which is permissible and exercised under the Act of 1902. Therefore the noble Viscount's suggestion in effect is to omit Clause 15. The noble Viscount went on to say that we had stated that county councils did not really control the minor items of expenditure. I think my noble friend Lord Fitzmaurice pointed out, and I am able to confirm what he said, that it is practically impossible for the Education Committee sitting at headquarters, to exercise what is ordinarily understood by control over the enormous series of items which are sent up to them by local committees. Control takes place in a sense owing to the fact that the accounts are looked through and are no doubt checked by the permanent officers and finally audited. In that sense there is control, but to say that this is, in a really strict sense, a control of the items of local expenditure is, I think, not to give quite an accurate description of what really occurs. My noble friend Lord Belper says he does not understand why the bodies who have the powers under sub-section (2), need necessarily be of a representative character, but I do not think he went so far as to say that unrepresentative bodies-should have the expenditure of public money. What he wants, as I take it, is for the county council to be able to say that it will not have a representative body, and therefore, it will abandon the power of delegating the expenditure of money.
LORD BELPERsaid his point was that the county councils should have the power of constituting these bodies, and of giving them their powers, as they were able to do under the Bill as it stood, but that, in every case where they gave an independent power to spend money, the body should be a representative one, having upon it some proportion of representatives of the ratepayers.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That, again, would practically mean that these

577
counties might stand out of this clause altogether.
LORD BELPER: Why?
THE EARL OF CREWE: The scheme which they would propose would not be a scheme in any strict sense under the clause.
LORD BELPER: Yes, under the clause.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Under the clause in one sense, but they might, as I understand, simply send in an account of what their scheme is at present, and ask to have it declared a scheme under the Act.
LORD BELPERsaid he referred to the powers under the clause. With regard to the present schemes it was a matter which could be considered how far they should be continued, but if they were continued by his Amendment they would be under the clause, and subject to the same conditions as any other scheme under the clause.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Except that if powers and duties were delegated to them which involved the expenditure of money they would not be a body composed as these are composed. Surely that would practically be equivalent to saying that a council need not send in any scheme at all. I do not see how that differs from allowing a county council to proceed on its present lines, and to count that as a scheme. Apparently perfect freedom is to be given to the county council to constitute the body as it pleases. It need not have any representative element on it except that enforced under the Act of 1902. What the advantage, therefore, is of bringing it under this clause, I confess I am unable to conceive. Therefore my noble friend's offer is hardly in the nature of an offer at all. The noble Lord must remember that when the schemes are sent in the Board of Education is not going to consider them on their merits as schemes. It is simply going to make up its mind whether or not they fall within the clause; and if the noble Lord's Amendment is inserted without any addition any scheme would fall within the clause.
LORD BELPERsaid the noble Earl did not appear to understand his own
578
clause. The Board of Education had certainly to approve the scheme, and by Section 5 of Clause 15, they were not to approve of it unless they were satisfied that proper inquiries had been made before preparing the scheme, and that an opportunity had been given to persons interested in the matter for expressing their views on any scheme so prepared, and that the scheme was within the powers given by the section. It seemed to him that that was a very different thing from schemes under the old clause. Under the Bill as it stood there was to be a public inquiry as to whether the mode of constituting the body was satisfactory to the districts, and therefore they would have not only the opinion of the county council but the opinion of others interested in the district.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I was not speaking of the manner in which the scheme is prepared, but of the scheme as sent in. I am afraid we cannot meet the noble Lord, but we are prepared to say that one-third of the members of the delegated body may be nominated members. Noble Lords will see that that is really running the figure of popular representation pretty fine, because, as a matter of fact, the members of the councils and other bodies who will sit on this body will only be, so to speak, partially representative of the whole area, since each can only be said directly to represent that part of the district for which he sits which is included in the total area to be governed by the body. This proportion is as near as we can go to the verge of not making the body representative at all, and I believe it will give to a very largo number, I hope a majority, of the ladies and gentlemen who have interested themselves in education the power of continuing their work.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHasked whether the words "members of the councils of such local government areas wholly or partly situate in the delegation area" included county councillors themselves.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It would not include, I think, all the members of the county council whose district might form part of the area. A member of the county council who was wholly in the

579
area would possibly be included, but I do not think the words would include all the members of the county council who might impinge, so to speak, on the area.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: So far as the question of principle is concerned, I do not know that the two sides of the House differ very widely. We are, I think, all of us in favour of delegation. It is no use arguing that point; and I think most of us will admit that if this Bill becomes law it will increase the necessity for delegation. Again, so far as I was able to gather, the three canons laid down by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to delegation, I, for one, am not disposed to challenge thorn. I understand His Majesty's Government consider it essential that the delegation bodies should be entrusted with matters of detail rather than with questions of high local policy. That principle is safeguarded by a section in the Bill, and with that section I do not think my noble friend Lord Belper desires to interfere.
LORD BELPER: Not at all.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThe second principle is that there shall be financial responsibility thrown on the delegation body and area. No one, I think, will challenge that. Then the principle upon which most stress was laid, particularly by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, was that in all cases where public money has to be spent the representative element should predominate. I do not think my noble friend Lord Belper objects to that principle.
LORD BELPER: I made an offer to insert it if the rest of my Amendment was accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: What I understand my noble friend to lay stress upon is that the clause as it stands is too rigid, and he desires that there should be more elasticity and latitude about it. The words which my noble friend desires to omit govern the whole clause, and there is no doubt that as the clause stands we shall be precluded from any delegation except to representa-
580
tive bodies pure and simple, I should have thought the remedy was a very simple one—namely, to alter the word's at the beginning of the clause in such a way as to give the latitude my noble friend desires, and then further on in the clause to insert words to cover the point that where the delegated body is spending public money, there the representative element should preponderate. I am surprised that the reasonable and businesslike proposal of my noble friend for dealing with the difficulty should not have been better received by noble Lords opposite. I gather that the proposal of the noble Earl the Lord President is merely that the proportion of nominated members under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) should be increased from one-fourth to one-third. That, I think, is important, but it does not seem to me so business-like a mode of dealing with the difficulty as that suggested by my noble friend; and I venture, even at the last moment, to appeal to the noble Earl whether he will not at any rate reserve the point and endeavour to meet my noble friend upon the lines he has himself suggested.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I wish very much on general grounds that I could meet the noble Marquess and my noble friend. The noble Marquess has forgotten, I think, that we do reserve by this Bill to county councils powers of delegation which they may have under the Act of 1902, or any other Act. The words in the clause are—
"Without prejudice to any power of delegation (otherwise than by scheme) under any other Act."
Practically what the noble Marquess wants is to be able to continue committees of that kind, and we do not want to prevent him doing so in the Bill, but he wants to get out of having to delegate any money powers whatever. We think that our suggestion offers a reasonable security that persons who are not members of the elected bodies, but are generally interested in education, will still be able to give their services as they have given them in the past to those local committees of the representative bodies. But we can hold out no hope of allowing the county council to make a delegation scheme without making any allowance for an expenditure of money.
LORD BELPERsaid that after the reply of the Lord President he must divide the Committee on the principle of his Amendment. He was most anxious to meet in a reasonable way any proposal that would be acceptable to the County Councils Association. He was in complete possession of the views of a large number of the members of that body representing every county council in England, and he could not undertake to make any further concession on their behalf in the direction of the noble Earl's suggestion without consulting them. The noble Earl had referred to the power of proceeding under the other Act with a scheme of
delegation. Did anybody seriously suggest that it would be possible to have two delegation bodies in the same area? If this clause was to be compulsory and there was to be a delegation body in every case, the other bodies would cease to exist unless they were reconstituted under this clause. He asked the Committee to divide on the Amendment now, but he hoped they might find some means later of coming to an arrangement on this point.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS.

Crowe, E. (L. President)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Lyveden, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

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

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Monkswell, L.

Abingdon, E.

Farrer, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Pirrie, L.

Carrington, E.

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

Reay, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ribblesdale, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L,

Sandhurst, L.

Haversham, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Headley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

James, L.

Weardale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Romney, E

Ampthill, L.

Grafton, D.

Rosse, E

Avebury, L.

Newcastle, D.

Shaftesbury, E

Barnard, L.

Northumberland, D.

Stanford, E

Barrymore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Waldegrave, E

Belper, L. [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Wharncliffe, E

Blythswood, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Yarborough, E

Borthwick, L.

Salisbury, M.

Braye, L.

Churchill, V

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bradford, E.

Cobham, V

Burton, L.

Camperdown, E.

Colville of Culross, V

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim)

Cathcart, E.

Cross, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Cawdor, E.

Falkland, V.

Clarendon, E.

Falmouth, V.

Clinton, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Halifax, V.

Colchester, L.

Dartrey, E.

Hill, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Derby, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

De L' Isle and Dudley, L.

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

De Maulay, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Deramore, L.

Fortescue, E.

Digby, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Bangor, L. Bp.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Halsbury, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lichfield, E.

Bristol, L. Bp

Harris, L.

Londesborough, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Lucan, E.

London, L. Bp.

Heneage, L,

Morley, E

Norwich, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Morton, E

Oxford, L. Bp.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Onslow, E

St. David's, L. Bp.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough

Plymouth, K

Abinger, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Radnor, E

Addington, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Vivian, L.

Sandys, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Waleran, L.

Seaton, L.

Wenlock, L.

Sherborne, L.

Trevor, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

On Question, "That the words 'local education committee' be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to leave out "and" and to insert "or by," so as to make the holding of a public local inquiry optional. He said that in many cases it would possibly be quite an unnecessary expense and trouble to hold a local inquiry as the feeling of the people might have been ascertained in other ways. It was thought most desirable that the holding of the local inquiry should not be compulsory if it was clear that public opinion could he effectively ascertained by other means.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 30, to leave out 'and' and to insert 'or by.' "—(Lord Belper.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I must remind my noble friend that he laid great stress on the public inquiry as constituting the difference between merely sending in an existing scheme and having it perforce accepted by the Board of Education, and knowing that that scheme was sanctified by public consent as shown at the public inquiry. If the words "or by" are inserted it is left entirely to the option of the authority whether they will hold an inquiry or select other means of arriving at local opinion. I could not agree to the Amendment, because it would seriously modify the effect of the clause.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHhoped the noble Earl would reconsider this point. Surely, if the schemes were published in every newspaper in the county and were well known to every one interested and no objection was raised, it was quite unnecessary to hold a public inquiry, which would be a mere matter of form, involving a great deal of needless trouble and expense. There ought to be some latitude in this matter. Where a public inquiry was necessary he was in favour of its being held.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I can show from what happened in an earlier discussion how necessary a local inquiry might
584
be. We had always been told that the whole of Lancashire was perfectly contented with the existing scheme. Viscount Cross said as much, and then my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth rose from the benches behind me and declared that parts of Lancashire with which he is acquainted are not satisfied. That is a point which would come out at a public local inquiry.
LORD AVEBURYcould not help feeling that the Lord President might meet Lord Belper on this point, as it did not follow that a public local inquiry would be necessary in every case.
LORD SHUTTLEWORTHsaid he had verified the statement he made earlier in the day by referring to hon. Members representing parts of Lancashire. There was a very strong feeling in several of the urban districts of Lancashire that in this matter the county council were out of touch with local feeling, at all events, as represented by the Amendment put down on behalf of the county council, and that without local inquiries it would be impossible for the views of the localities to be ascertained.
LORD BELPERadmitted that in many cases the inquiry would be necessary and would be held, but he thought county councils should be trusted in the matter, and that where it was obviously not necessary they should not be required to hold an inquiry. If, however, the view of the Government was that the county councils could not be trusted he would not press his Amendment, but perhaps at a later stage a provision would, be inserted that the local inquiry should not be held unless in the opinion of the Board of Education it was necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to leave out sub-section (3), which is in the following terms:—
"The provisions of the scheme as to the powers and duties delegated, and as to the

585
charging of expenses, shall be uniform as respects all the delegation areas in the county."
The County Councils Association, he said, had considered this matter very carefully, and had come to the conclusion that the sub-section as it stood would be extremely undesirable. It did more than any other part of the clause to keep the delegation within very narrow limits. They might have within the county a variety of differently constituted bodies, but the effect of this sub-section would be that the powers and duties delegated would have to be measured by the most incompetent authority in the county, and they would not be able to trust even those in whom they had the greatest confidence with larger powers than those conferred on very indifferent bodies. The only argument chat he had heard against the Amendment was that it would cause great confusion if these matters were not kept uniform in every district. He had taken particular trouble to inquire whether that was likely to be the case, and he was told that no doubt it would make some difference in the keeping of the accounts, but that it would be perfectly easy to carry out if a county thought it desirable. In his opinion the enforcing of uniformity would do more to kill the delegation scheme than anything else.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, lines 13 to 15, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Belper.)
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the reason why the Government inserted the subsection and why, as at present advised, they thought it their duty to retain it, was that there was a necessity to avoid the risk of increasing still further what was bound to be increased very much in any case—the very great complication of county accounts. Under existing legislation county finance, which used to be a matter of comparative simplicity, had become one of great intricacy, and the Government hesitated to increase the difficulties by allowing varying charges.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the objection to accepting the Amendment, as stated by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was clearly the objection of the Local Government auditor. In other words it was that
586
accounts did not exist for the county but that the county existed for the accounts. It was purely red-tape objection. The Local Government auditor should accommodate himself to circumstances and not ask circumstances to accommodate themselves to him.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER moved to leave out the provision that—
"A representative body must be either—
"(a) a body elected for the purpose in manner provided by the scheme by the local government or parochial electors for the delegation area, on which women shall be capable of being elected; or (b) the council of a local government area, where that is possible owing to the delegation, area being a single local government area; or (c) a body composed of members of the Councils of such local government areas wholly or partly situate in the delegation area as the scheme directs, and appointed by those Councils in such manner and proportions and subject to such conditions as may be provided by the scheme, and, if the scheme so directs, of additional members nominated in manner provided by the scheme, and not exceeding in number one-fourth of the total number of the representative body. For the purposes of this provision, in the case of a local government area being a parish not having a parish council, parochial electors shall be substituted for members of the parish council, and the parish meeting shall be substituted for the parish council,"
and to insert the following new subsection—
"Every scheme shall specify the constitution and, if necessary, the mode of election of the local education committees, and the powers and duties to be delegated to them."
He said it would not be necessary for him to add much in regard to this Amendment, which was obviously meant to carry out the condition laid down by the County Councils Association in consenting to this clause, that they should have full latitude to constitute those bodies in whatever way they thought best. He did not in the least mean to infer that there might not be an enormous number of cases where some such proposal as that made in the Bill would be the means suggested for securing the best and most efficient body. The authority of a local government area such as an urban council would be the proper authority to which to give the powers where they were confident that the members took an interest in education and had had experience of the management of schools. Again, there might be

587
districts where it would be desirable to have what was known as an ad hoc representative body elected for this special purpose; and in many scattered districts it might be very difficult indeed to get a proper authority for educational work in the way suggested in the clause as it stood. He thought it was obvious, for instance, that in the case of a scattered agricultural district with schools at some distance apart the only satisfactory way would be to obtain as many managers as possible and constitute them into a body with larger powers than managers were usually given. He appealed to the Government again in this matter to trust the education authorities and the county councils. They had been told that it was the principle of the Bill to trust the local authorities, but the clause under discussion rather suggested suspicion of every proposal the local authorities made, and the supposition that they would try and work in a way hostile to the interests of education in their county. The Government must have had experience themselves of the laborious days and nights that were spent by local education authorities in working the Education Act to the best of their ability; and did noble Lords suppose that these gentlemen, who had given up half their lives to promoting the educational interests of their county, would themselves constitute bodies which would be unsuitable and likely to be injurious to the educational system which they had done so much to build up? He hoped the Government would recognise that in this matter they were only anxious to do the best they could for the efficiency of these bodies in the different counties.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 18, to leave out from contiguous' to the end of line 41, and to insert as a new sub-section: 'Every scheme shall specify the constitution and, if necessary, the mode of election of the local education committees, and the powers and duties to be delegated to them.'"—(Lord Belper.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: Fortunately, I need not detain the Committee at any length upon this Amendment, because it is in effect the one on which we have already divided, and, therefore, it is quite unnecessary to go into the matter again. But I must point out to the Committee that the noble Lord is entirely in error if he thinks we are
588
actuated in any degree by mistrust of the county councils in making the proposals involved in this clause. We express no mistrust whatever of the general operations of county councils in relation to education, and we fully recognise the admirable manner in which they I have thrown themselves into their work and the laborious days and nights which they have spent in endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory system of county education. But this clause deals only with the matter of delegation, upon which there evidently has been a considerable difference of opinion among different county councils in various parts of the country. We quite admit that it was the intention of the clause to make some scheme of real delegation compulsory on the county councils. The Committee apparently do not desire that that should be so; and if a county council wants to get out of proposing anything like a large scheme it will now be enabled to do so. We regret the fact; but, in view of the votes which have previously been given, we do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing on this Amendment.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTHrose to move to omit from subsection (6) the words "having a population according to the last census of less than sixty-five thousand."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but is this Amendment in order? It appears to me to be equivalent to altering the word "shall" into "may," which the Committee have already decided not to do. The effect of it would be to allow any county not to submit a scheme, whereas we have in the beginning of the clause provided that they must submit a scheme.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTHsaid that if his Amendment was not in order he would say no more upon it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be that no county need submit a scheme,

589
and we have already decided, in subsection (1), that the council of every county shall submit a scheme. I do not know whether the fact that in this case a special report has to be made to the Board of Education will put the noble Lord in order, but I should have thought the practical effect of the Amendment would be to reverse the decision the Committee has arrived at.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsuggested that the noble Lord should compare his Amendment with the Bill as it would appear when reprinted, and, if he thought it necessary, he could move the Amendment on Report.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that the provision in the subsection in question was to the effect that the council of a county having a population according to the last census of less than 65,000 might pass a Resolution that a scheme was not necessary in their case, having regard to the special circumstances of their county, and make a special report on the subject to the Board of Education, and then the Board of Education, if they thought fit, could exempt that council from the obligation to make a scheme under the section. The point involved in the Amendment was whether any county might do this, or whether the power was to be confined, as proposed in the clause, to a county having a population of less than 65,000. In his opinion the Amendment was quite in order.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment. For his part he would sooner make it compulsory on all counties than agree to the alteration suggested.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTHsubmitted that according to the Bill nearly the whole of the counties in England would be precluded from availing themselves of the saving provision in this sub-section, which seemed to afford an opportunity to those counties who had a well-considered scheme already in practical working order giving general satisfaction, though possibly not exactly within the lines laid down in the Bill, to state their case to the Board of Education. He did not know whether the provision had any mysterious connec-
590
tion with Wales, since a few Welsh counties were under the population limit named. His point was that it was a great pity that this saving proviso should be, as far as England was concerned, practically a nullity on account of a technical point as to population for which it was not easy to see a reason.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 14, to leave out from the word 'county' to the word 'pass' in line 16.—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord has moved his Amendment and has described it as though the Bill remained as it was when introduced. When he says that all counties ought to be allowed to make schemes not of the character described in the Bill he forgets that owing to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Belper that is exactly what they will be able to do. They will practically be able to prepare schemes of their own on their own lines. The noble Lord said he did not understand why counties under sixty five thousand should be allowed to stand out and why larger counties should not have the same privilege. It was simply on the ground that the smaller bodies might be able to show very easily that there was no necessity for any kind of delegation at all in their case. For instance, to organise an elaborate system of county committees in Rutland would obviously be an unwise and oven impossible thing to do. If the principle were extended to all counties, as the noble Lord desires, the Board of Education would have to go into the merits of the particular schemes, and that is exactly what the Board of Education are not prepared to do. If the noble Lord will study the whole of the clause he will see that at no point does the Board of Education express any opinion as to the advantage of any particular scheme. All they have to do is to say that the scheme carries out the clause as it stands.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. As I understand it, this sub-section is intended to establish an exception to the general rule. The general rule is this, that all counties are held bound to prepare schemes, and the

591
object of this sub-section is to relieve certain very small counties of the obligation of preparing such schemes. The Amendment of the noble Lord would have the effect of relieving all counties of the necessity of preparing these schemes. You first set up a general rule and then propose to relieve everybody of it. That seems scarcely consistent with the intention of the clause; and it must also be borne in mind that, if all counties are relieved of this obligation, a considerable amount of extra work will be thrown on the Board of Education.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Consequential Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH,in the absence of the Marquess of Huntly, moved the insertion of a new sub-section to provide compensation to officials who would suffer direct pecuniary loss by the abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary under this Bill. He understood from his noble friend, Lord Huntly, that, with a slight alteration in wording, the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment. He thought the Committee would be of one opinion as to the justice of some compensation being provided in this case.
Amendment moved—
"In page 15, line 10, after 'area' to insert as now sub-sections: (11) Section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, which relates to compensation to existing officers, shall apply to any officers who, by virtue of this Act or anything done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act, shall suffer direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary, subject as follows: (a) Any reference in that section to the county council shall include a reference to a borough or urban district council; and (b) Any expenses shall be paid out of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of a council under this Act are paid, and it any compensation is payable otherwise than by way of an annual sum, the payment of that compensation shall be a purpose for which a council may borrow for the purposes of this Act. (12) Nothing in this clause shall prevent the local education authority from delegating to school committees, as constituted by this Act, any of its powers and duties which may be delegated under Section 1 of this clause.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think my noble friend rather went beyond the mark when he said that the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment with
592
some slight variation. When we first saw it we felt considerable alarm, because it everybody in the employment of a county council, possibly including a teacher, who thought that he was in any way damaged by this Act, could apply for compensation an alarming prospect was opened. But I understand that the noble Marquess really only intended that it was to be in consequence of the delegation schemes, and that, of course, considerably limits the possibility. But there are one or two considerations that I am bound to point out I would ask the noble Earl whether it is wise for him to press the Amendment. In the first place I imagine the cases would not be numerous or the amounts large. That, no doubt, might be taken as a reason for not objecting; but it certainly does show that if this Amendment is not agreed to, it is very questionable whether any hardship would be undergone, except in the rarest cases, by individual officers. Though it is possible that the delegation clause may throw some officials out of work so far as regards that particular work, I think your Lordships will agree that the taking over of the schools and matters of that kind will probably involve a considerable amount of clerical work which would probably have to be done by the very people whose delegation work might possibly be lost to them. Then the noble Earl was not accurate in saying that it was the custom to compensate officers when thrown out of work by the operation of an Act of Parliament. What has been done under the Act of 1902 and under a good many Acts has been to compensate people when the body which they serve is altogether done away with. Thus, for instance, when the school boards were abolished the officers of the school boards were compensated, but in this case no body is done away with. The point here is that there is a possibility that some particular work may be lost to particular people owing to the action of Parliament, and I am not sure that it would not be establishing a somewhat dangerous precedent to enact compensation in this particular case. I ask whether it is wise for your Lordships to insert an Amendment the object of which is simply and solely to throw an additional charge on the public funds.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he did not propose to ask the noble

593
Earl to press the Amendment, but at the same time he thought there was much to be said on behalf of those officials who would, under the delegation scheme, be thrown out of employment. It was distinctly hard that those officials, who had rendered such good service to the cause of education in the past, should be left without any consideration. In the Act of 1902 special provision was made for the displaced officers.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, through the abolition of the body which they served. That is not a parallel case.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYagreed that it would not be justifiable for their Lordships to pass an Amendment placing an extra burden on the rates, but he thought that in the interests of the public service it would be well if the noble Earl would consider whether it was right that officials who had devoted the best years of their lives to the service of education should now be left absolutely in the cold.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid he had no desire to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, "That Clause 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
LORD WENLOCKcalled attention to a remark which had fallen from the Lord President with regard to the action of county councils in the past. He understood his noble friend to say that it was in consequence of the backwardness of certain county councils that it was found necessary to introduce the present clause, making it compulsory on them to submit schemes of delegation. He had some difficulty in reconciling the noble Earl's argument with the fact that when the Government introduced this particular clause in the first instance they gave county councils an opportunity of evading the obligation which was now placed upon them. Therefore, he could hardly think that at the time the Government prepared this measure they considered that county councils had been backward in the discharge of their duty. He greatly regretted the use by the noble Earl of this expression. It had now been settled that all county councils
594
were to prepare schemes, and he hoped that with the safeguards introduced by his noble friend, Lord Belper, they would be able to work the clause satisfactorily. But, at the same time, he wished to enter a protest against any reflection being cast upon the way in which county councils had discharged their duty in the past in preparing schemes.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I regret most sincerely if the noble Lord thinks I meant to cast any aspersion on the general character of any county council, and I am quite prepared to admit, if it gives my noble friend any pleasure, that the whole question of delegation might, under the Act of 1902, be regarded rather more as a matter of opinion than as a matter of duty.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven' o clock till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD FOR IRELAND.
  Correspondence between His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 TO 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 17th December 1906, approving of an amended regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all loans raised in India chargeable on the revenues of India, out standing at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 30th September, 1906, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, and the date of the termination of each loan, the debt incurred during the half-year, the moneys raised thereby during the half-year, the loans paid off or discharged during the half-year, and the loans outstanding at the close of the half-year, stating, so far as the public convenience will allow, the purpose or service for which moneys have been raised during the half-year.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 256.) Minutes of evidence: Laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment considered (according to order).
THE EARL OF GRANARD: The Amendment inserted by the other House is simply a drafting Amendment, and in those circumstances I venture to hope
An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a Speech indicates revision by the Member.
1606
your Lordships will agree to the Commons' Amendment.
Moved, "That the Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment be agreed to."—(The Earl of Granard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Bill road 3a, and passed.

TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, and reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments considered (according to order).
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I rise to move that this House do not insist upon the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. I can assure the House that my having once more to inflict a disquisition upon your Lordships on the subject of this Bill is not owing to any desire of my own, but, as the Bill has now reached a somewhat critical period of its existence, I hope I may be allowed to trespass for a few moments on the patience of the House in tracing how it has arrived at this stage. The Bill was originally introduced into the House of Commons by a private Member. In the debate on the Second Reading the Chief Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, expressed his approval of the contents of the greater part of the Bill, but criticised in principle two clauses—namely, Clause 5, which provided compensation for disturbance, and Clause 6, which provided for leasehold enfranchisement. He particularly criticised the principle of compensation for disturbance as applied in the original Clause 5 of the Bill. In Committee Clause 5 was remodelled and Clause 6 was omitted altogether in order to meet the views of the Government. In the autumn the Government, under the belief that they would be able to secure its passage through another place,

1607
starred the Bill. They have been at tacked elsewhere for their action in that respect, but I submit to your Lordships that in the early months of the summer it was absolutely impossible for any man to realise how long this autumn session, with all its joys of foggy days and midnight sittings, would last; and the Government have been criticised in this House because they have taken up the Bill at all There has been no change of attitude on the part of the Government with regard to this Bill. There has been no volte face, no reversal of front, nothing of that kind. The attitude of the Government has been straight forward and consistent throughout. The Bill as your Lordships are aware, underwent material alteration in this House, and it then returned to the House of Commons. The House of Commons have agreed to nearly all the Amendments which were introduced in this House, would like to show how very great and real those concessions have been. In Clause 1 they have accepted Lord Ashbourne's Amendment and Lord Arran's Amendment. In Clause 6 they have accepted Lord Donoughmore's clause almost in its entirety. They have accepted the substance of Lord Leitrim's Amendment, and they have accepted several new subsections introduced at the instance of Lord Clonbrook. They have accepted another clause introduced in order to meet certain objections by Lord Dunboyne, and they have ratified the arrangement which, on behalf of the Government, I made in this House to introduce new clauses covering the case of trustees and companies. They have accepted an Amendment of Lord Mayo to leave out clubs and other places of social amusement, and they have accepted, no doubt very much against their will, the Amendment of Lord Pembroke limiting the scope of the Bill to urban districts and villages. These are the concessions which the House of Commons have made, and I think that they are no small concessions. I may add that it has been no easy matter for the Government to induce the House of Commons to agree to make these very considerable concessions to this House. I submit that in so doing the House of Commons have deferred in this
1608
matter to the opinion of this House, and that they and the Government have done everything in their power to arrive at a compromise.
With regard to the Amendments which have come back to us from the Houseof Commons—and I do not deny for a moment that they are important Amendments—I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I outline what the attitude of the Government with regard to them will be. First, as regards retrospection. I do not wish to go into arguments which we have already had in this House with regard to that principle. I would only point out that there is a very real grievance in Ireland on account of it. It is a matter of common knowledge, and I do not believe any noble Lord in this House will deny, that tenants in Ireland have gone on renewing their tenancies from year to year, trusting implicitly in their landlord. In some cases landlords have taken advantage of that trust, and it is possible that in future landlords may take advantage of that confidence and that serious cases of hardship will arise. As I have said, the principle in the Bill is not a new one either in English or in Irish Acts of Parliament. Noble Lords from Ireland have argued, rather astutely it seems to me, perhaps to intimidate noble Lords who do not come from Ireland, that if you introduce this principle in this Bill, there is no doubt whatever that it will be introduced into English and Scottish Acts of Parliament. I confess I cannot agree in any sense with that. I am informed that the same argument was used with regard to the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, and yet those principles have never yet been applied in England. I cannot see why Parliament should be frightened out of remedying an injustice in one part of the Empire simply from the fear that the principle may under certain conditions be applied in other parts. If you push that argument to its logical conclusion, you will never have any legislation at all, and you may as well shut up both Houses of Parliament at once. The cases of England and Ireland are entirely apart. They have been dealt with separately on their merits the past, and they must be dealt with separately in the future.

1609
I now come to the other point upon which the Commons have disagreed with your Lordships— namely, compensation for disturbance. I would venture to remind you that this is not the clause as it stood in the original Bill. It was introduced at the instance of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Donoughmore. What has been done in the House of Commons is this. Towards the end of the clause they have struck out these words—
"Provided that such compensation shall in no case exceed three years' rent of the holding."
I think there is a very good explanation and reason for that, viz., that it is impossible to calculate the amount of goodwill by a number of years rent. That is an entirely fallacious test. It is possible that the rent of a holding may be very high and the goodwill very small, but the converse is also possible, that the rent may be very low whilst the goodwill is relatively high. It is possible to suppose a case of a shop rented at, say, £20 or £30 a year, where the goodwill is equal to £200. My noble friend the Lord President of the Council, and, perhaps, in a humbler degree, myself, have in this House done our best to arrive at a compromise in regard to this Bill. We have made many concessions, but at length the limit of concession is reached, and I have to state on behalf of His Majesty's Government that unless this House can see its way to accept these two Amendments which have come back from the House of Commons the Bill must drop.
I would like to call attention to the division which took place last night in the House of Commons on the principle of retrospection. In that division the Government had a majority of 229, only some thirty-six Members, I think, being found to vote against the Bill. Now, my Lords, 229 is a very respectable majority. I think that even my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, satiated almost to the point of indifference by the huge majorities he can command in this House, will admit that 229 is a substantial majority; but I am aware that there are Members in this House with whom that argument carries no weight at all. They do not mind whether the majority is 229 or any higher figure. But I would ask
1610
their attention while I briefly analyse the division list and point out certain striking features. In the first place, only three Members representing Irish constituencies were found to vote against the Bill. The great majority of the Ulster Party abstained from the division. The Leader of the Ulster Party, MR. Walter Long, abstained from voting, and I think I am right in saying that he has refrained from taking partin any important division in the other House against this Bill. More than this, there were three Members from Ulster who spoke on behalf of the principle of retrospection, and three Ulster Members went into the Lobby with the Government in favour of the principle. I have been given to understand that one swallow does not make a summer, but if you take three swallows together, I submit that that is an indication that milder atmospheric conditions are close at hand; and the fact that three Ulster members went into the Lobby with the Government shows that those who were at first strong opponents of the Bill now adopt towards it a more favourable attitude.
I have stated what I have to say in no minatory or aggressive spirit. Everyone knows, I believe, that certain noble Lords opposite would regard the statement that the Bill under certain circumstances will drop, not as a threat, but rather as an inducement to vote against these Amendments. Certain noble Lords opposite do not regard the Bill with any very great amount of favour. But I assure your Lordships that I have no intention of using a threat of any sort or kind when I say that we shall be obliged, if your Lordships cannot agree to these Amendments, to lose the Bill. In conclusion, I would only say one word, not to noble Lords from Ireland, for I fear their mind is already made up, but to English and Scottish Peers in this House. I would venture to point out to them that, if this question is not settled now, this is only the beginning of a long series of acrimonious debates in both Houses of Parliament. Further, it will be a source of agitation in Ireland, a source of serious disturbance, and probably of breaches of the peace in that country. The Bill is asked for with, perfect unanimity by the whole of the

1611
Irish people, and I ask noble Lords opposite to hesitate before they deny a wish expressed with almost entire unanimity by a nation. That is all I have to say. I have endeavoured to outline clearly what the policy of the Government in this matter is. It is for noble Lords opposite to decide what course they will now pursue. With noble Lords opposite rests the decision and the responsibility for that decision.
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed."—(Lord Denman.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has assumed in his manner that he was addressing a hostile audience, incapable of conviction or modification of view, and that, in fact, he was wasting his powers in attempting to argue the case at all. But what is the good of putting down a Motion for consideration if we are told at the outset that it is no good considering the matter? I claim to be a moderate and not an unreasonable man, and when I hear a debate opened I am always prepared to discuss on temperate lines what are the main issues. The noble Lord has given his Government a character of which any Government might be justly proud. He has suggested that there never was a more judicious Government, that they are always willing to do what is fair and right; in fact, that no people could be better. I have lived a great many years longer in the world than the noble Lord, and I have come to the conclusion that it is always wise to approach every question in a temperate spirit. No doubt the Government, composed of able men, of course of varying intelligence but with a high average of prudence, good sense, and ability, recognise the reasonableness of meeting some Amendments by modifications and others by acceptance. We consider the matter from exactly the same point of view. We accepted the views of His Majesty's Government on a great many points, and we did not press anything we thought unreasonable. Let the Government, if it makes them happy, take credit for having accepted Amendments to which they did
1612
not see their way to make any legitimate resistance.
There are two Amendments put down for discussion to-day that we are invited not to discuss. Being tolerably familiar with Irish questions and with the Irish Land Code, I can hardly conceive two Amendments that would lend themselves more to fair, reasonable, and temperate examination. The first of them is what is called the retrospective Amendment. The clause as originally introduced by the Government provided that tenants, subject to a qualification taken from the Act of 1870, whether the improvements were made before or after the Bill came into operation, should be able to make a claim for improvements. That was dealt with elsewhere by the suggestion that, having regard to the facts, retrospective action was not reasonable. It was pointed out that this was a perfectly new development, and that it was an extremely strong measure to give retrospective effect to legislation dealing for the first time with towns. The Government resisted that objection in the House of Commons. Then the Bill came here and we dealt with it, and I think we did so in a not unreasonable spirit.
There are two aspects of retrospection—one in reference to the date of the holdings, and the other in reference to the date of the improvements. Your Lordships drew a distinction between improvements made on holdings before the passing of the Bill and those made after the Act had come into operation. This House did not think it reasonable that the provision should extend to improvements made before the passing of the Act, when no one had the faintest conception that such a startling change in the law would take place, a change applying legislation for agricultural holdings to houses in Irish towns and villages. Now, this particular clause is presented to us by the noble Earl in hardly the language of persuasion, though he has told us that the language he used was not threatening language. I prefer to deal with the subject in the language of reason and commonsense.
What was done in the House of Commons? The House of Commons

1613
put back the clause in its original shape. The principle that they contend for is this, that retrospective action must be recognised. That is, that improvements made in the past are to be recognised and dealt with as subject-matter for compensation. The earlier legislation, the Act of 1870, provided that there should be certain safeguards. That Act recognised that improvements made before the passing of that legislation had to a certain extent to be safeguarded. MR. Gladstone was Prime Minister of that day. He made himself a master of everything connected with tenure in Ireland and took an active part himself in all these measures, and the way he sought to safeguard the matter was this. He provided that in reference to all improvements made before the passing of the Act, compensation could only be obtained for permanent buildings and for improvements made within twenty years before the passing of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Clause2 of this Bill was an excerpt from the Act of 1870. MR. Gladstone recognised that when you are dealing with a principle of this kind a difference must be observed between improvements made before and improvements made after the passing of the Act. You cannot say that improvements made before the passing of the Act are to be dealt with in the same way as improvements made subsequently. There is a distinction, and the necessity of certain safeguards must be recognised. I am not aware whether this is a particular aspect of the question on which the House of Commons voted, but I do not find that that particular aspect had attention concentrated upon it. If I were anxious to arrive at a moderate conclusion in reference to this matter, I would apply myself to see whether the qualifications that are to be found in the sub-section I refer to should be modified in reference to the position in which we find ourselves. I think the point is open to careful examination whether safeguards appropriate to land in the Act of1870 can be applied without change to the different subject-matter of buildings. I do not myself think it is reasonable. The subsection was framed to deal with a different matter. Is it reasonable to say, in reference to towns, that the buildings might be claimed for at all times without
1614
a qualification of years? I think myself that that is too strong.
The only other clause that the noble Lord has applied himself to is that in reference to compensation for disturbance I should approach that with great misgiving, except that I have perfect confidence in my desire not to say anything in the slightest degree disagreeable or offensive to noble Lords opposite. What is that clause? We are familiar with the term "compensation for disturbance. "This is an effort to introduce that principle into towns in Ireland. The clause is taken almost verbatim from the Land Tenure Bill, and there are no qualifications of any importance grafted on to it except the frank admission that goodwill is an element which may be taken into account. That was a very substantial thing to do. My noble friend Lord Donoughmore at first proposed that the compensation should be limited to one year. That was inserted in Committee. It was then pointed out by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and also by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council that that was not adequate, and that a higher figure should be inserted. On Report, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, acting for the Government, moved that instead of one year five years should be inserted. In the discussion that took place the Lord President indicated that one year was entirely inadequate, and that three years, the period in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act in reference to a similar subject-matter, would be more appropriate for consideration. When Lord Denman subsequently proposed the insertion of five years, my noble friend Lord Donoughmore took exception, and expressed his willingness to accept three years as mentioned by the noble Earl the Lord President, and three years has now been assented to by the Government as a modification of their proposal for five years. Is it reasonable for us to be told that if we do not forget and ignore an Amendment put in with the sanction of the Government the Bill must die, and die at our hands? I do not think it is reasonable to ask us to unsay everything that has been said, and to ignore the concessions of the Government in reference to this subject.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, what my noble and learned friend describes as compensation for disturbance is really compensation for loss of goodwill. As regards that particular Amendment, my position is perfectly clear. I have always objected to limiting it in any way by any number of years rent. It appears to me that if you limit it as it is limited in the Bill to three years you are really giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The House accepts the principle that compensation should be given under certain circumsstances for the loss sustained in the shape of goodwill, and it is then limited to three years'rent. Imagine the case of a shopkeeper, with a good little business, who pays £10 a year rent. He may be practically forced out of the holding by onerous conditions. He may be unable to get equally good premises in the same town, and, what is exceedingly likely to occur, he may not get any other premises in the town at all. The goodwill in connection with that business might have been created by the tenant's grandfather, his father, and then himself, and it would be farcical in such a case to say that £30 would be any compensation. I prefer the provision as it was in the Bill when it came up to your Lordships. I think the amount of compensation ought to be left to the decision of the Court.
I should like to say a word or two upon the Commons objections to the Amendments of this House, as I was responsible for some of those Amendments. I objected to the retrospective character of the Bill for three more or less distinct reasons. First of all, I objected to the principle that you should take away a man's property without any compensation; in the second place, I objected because I thought it would have a bad effect upon the peasant proprietors who are so rapidly being created in Ireland; and I objected, in the third place, because I felt that the retrospective character of the Bill would entail hardship upon owners of town property, and, more especially, upon the small owners of town property. As far as the principle is concerned my objections still hold good. I dislike the principle. Yesterday in the other House the Attorney-General for Ireland spoke
1616
of the owner having a legal and technical right to property which in equity and justice ought to belong to the tenant. I accept that for the sake of argument. I admit at once that there is perfect justification for legislation to alter that condition of things in the future; but to urge that it is legitimate on the part of Parliament to take away property to which a man is legally entitled appears to me, even though you think he ought not to be entitled to it, to be another matter altogether. I still think that interfering with the legal rights of these small owners will have a prejudicial effect upon occupying tenants throughout Ireland. These men are buying their freeholds; we are inviting them to invest their capital in developing them, and their security is a Parliamentary title. It surely cannot be a very good object lesson to these small owners for Parliament to interfere with legal rights and legal titles in the way proposed. I entertain the same objection now that I did before on these two points.
As regards the hardship that the retrospective action of the Bill may entail on owners of town property, I must admit that I have considerably modified my views on account of other Amendments which were moved and which remain in the Bill, and especially on account of an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. As the Bill now stands, no compensation can be given for any improvement in excess of the capitalised value of such addition to the letting value of the holding as the Court shall determine to be the direct result of such improvement. Moreover, the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of the improvement has to be considered, and no compensation can be claimed if the landlord has made a reasonable offer of a new tenancy or of the continuance or renewal of the tenancy. Surely that makes a very considerable alteration in the Bill as it came up to your Lordships' House. The time during which the tenant has enjoyed the advantage of the improvement he has made has to be considered, and there can be no compensation, as I understand it, if the value of the improvement has been exhausted during the time in which the tenant has been in

1617
the enjoyment of it. He can only claim compensation for the unexhausted value of the improvement, and if the landlord offers to renew the tenancy so as to give sufficient time for the Value of the improvement to be exhausted, no compensation can be claimed.
In the very worst case which can be imagined, if the improvement was made, say, the day before this Bill becomes an Act, if it does become an Act, the compensation is limited to the capitalisation of the increased letting value directly consequent on the improvement. It appears to me that the landlord in that case, if he has to pay compensation for an improvement, recoups himself in the increased letting value in the same way, or practically in the same way, as if he had made the improvement himself and charged the tenant interest for doing so, as he is entitled to do under the Bill. In these circumstances I am bound to say that, as far as any hardship that the retrospective character of the Bill can inflict on the owner of town property, the Bill as it has been amended in this House by the insertion of provisions which have not been objected to in the House of Commons has been profoundly modified; and, so far as that is concerned, I do not entertain the same objections to its restrospective character as before.
The most practical point, after all, is the effect the retrospective provision may have on owners of town property. So far as the principle is concerned, as the Duke of Devonshire said the other night, it is perhaps better at times to be unprincipled. At any rate, we have to consider the probability that if your Lordships insist on your Amendments the Bill may be lost. Personally I should be exceedingly sorry to see the Bill lost. The Bill contains a great deal that is very good and very beneficial, and, therefore, the position I find myself in is this. I have to consider whether I am justified in running the risk of losing a Bill which I consider to be a good Bill in most respects, in order to maintain a principle which I am bound to say appears tome to be inoperative so far as this measure is concerned—a principle which will really not affect owners under the Bill. In these circum-
1618
stances I should not feel justified in asking your Lordships to maintain the Amendment which I myself moved, and thereby to imperil the Bill.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that you decided, on 11th December, by a large majority, not to admit the principle of retrospection in this Bill. I have no complaint to make of the way in which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill brought forward the disagreement of the Commons with our Amendments. There was only one thing which he said at the end of his speech to which I would call attention, namely, that if we insist on our Amendment regarding retrospection the Bill must drop, and that in consequence there may be trouble and breaches of the peace in Ireland. Now, we are quite accustomed to that sort of thing in Ireland. That really does not impress me very much. I am perfectly certain that the Government know how to deal with that sort of thing. But I doubt whether this House, having adhered to a principle, is likely to go back upon it. I take exception to the statement that town tenancies in Ireland are different from those in Great Britain. Town tenancies are in exactly the same position in England, Scotland, and Wales, and if you admit the principle for Ireland it will undoubtedly cross the Channel and be adopted here.
What is the effect of the retrospective provision? Noble Lords have tried to belittle its effect. The effect of it will be that small owners who have invested their savings in these houses will be ruined; they cannot possibly face the law suits that are likely to ensue. Let me take the case of a landlord who has a row of houses in a town, the leases of which fall in. He desires to improve the property. The tenants claim compensation in each case, and the money which he intended to spend in improving the property goes into the hands of the lawyers. A great deal of the Bill is taken up with safeguards for its future working which I allow are excellent. The safeguards are—the tenant must give notice, the landlord may make the improvement himself, he may dispute the necessity for the improvement, and he

1619
may register the improvement. But there is not one of those safeguards with regard to past improvements. If it is so necessary that future improvements should be safeguarded in this way, why is there no safeguard in the matter of improvements made in the past?
It is entirely wrong to imagine that we wish to wreck the Bill. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill seemed to think that noble Lords from Ireland had entirely made up their minds on this subject. That is so; but they are open to arrangement and to a certain amount of compromise. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 in the Bill as brought from the Commons read as follows—
"A tenant shall not be entitled to claim compensation for any improvement made before the passing of this Act except permanent buildings unless made within twenty years before the date of such claim."
We feel that the Bill ought not to be lost, and we suggest that instead of "twenty" you should insert "ten" years. I do not know whether the Government can see their way to accept that compromise. If they do not accept it I hope noble Lords will support me in the matter. I am not anxious that the Bill should be lost, but I think your Lordships should try to arrive at some arrangement by which the retrospective action should be limited to some extent.
Lord CASTLETOWN: My Lords, I had not the opportunity of speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, and therefore I hope I may be pardoned if I say a few words at this stage. I would venture very humbly to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and His Majesty's Government to reconsider, if they possibly can, the hard and fast decision at which they have arrived in regard to the retrospective clause. In my judgment this clause is unnecessary and unwise, and will, I am afraid, be destructive of the confidence which all of us who live in Ireland know is growing up there among the middle classes in investing not only in land but in buildings. There is also a feeling that these sudden changes in legislation are dying out, and that we are arriving at a more peaceful epoch. I have stated that the clause is unnecessary, and I shall be able to show that it was strongly opposed by the Chief
1620
Secretary and, I think, the Attorney-General before it was inserted in the Bill in another place. It was imported into the Bill because it was felt by a large number of members from all parts of Ireland that it was a very good thing to conciliate a certain number of voters in small villages. That accounted for the insertion of the clause, the harm that would be done by the clause not being considered.
The retrospective clause was also imported into the Bill as a kind of scourge for certain landlords who have acted unwisely, but in reality it will not have the deterrent effect supposed, for the simple reason that the majority of these landlords are rich men and will not mind either the litigation that will ensue or the payment of large sums by way of compensation. The clause will very severely punish the men who have saved money and invested it in houses in towns and villages, and who desire to live upon their small incomes. The speeches of the Attorney-General in the other House show that when he dealt with the retrospective clause he felt that he was not on very strong ground; and when replying to Sir E. Carson, who urged the protection of these middle-class investors, the Attorney-General used very remarkable words, and words which I think tend to show that my view of the case is the correct one. Sir E. Carson held that, if it was necessary to protect those who entered into future contracts, it was still more necessary to protect those who had already entered into contracts. The Attorney-General replied—
"Such a person took over all the obligations of the previous holder, and if he were a prudent man he would, when purchasing the property, employ a solicitor to see what obligations he was taking over. Under these circumstances he would take over the business with all the existing assets and liabilities and a prudent man would inquire what they were before he purchased."
That, my Lords, is the short and simple answer as to the unwisdom of this retrospective clause. If such a person had gone, as the Attorney-General suggested, to his solicitor, he would have been told that the law did not compel him to pay retrospective compensation for damages, and that he would not have to pay for all the improvements he had purchased from some other landlord.

1621
Such a provision as this in the Bill will shake the confidence of everyone in the country who wants to invest money in this type of property. I am thoroughly in accord with the Bill as regards the future, for men will know exactly the position they are in when they invest their money. Living among these people and hearing from them what they feel on this subject, I would appeal to His Majesty's Government to reconsider if possible the form of the retrospective clause. I think the words suggested by the noble Earl opposite, if accepted by the Government, would lessen the injustice which I fear will be inflicted on the persons concerned I hope the Government will look into the question if it is not too late.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, as I had the honour of moving the Amendment which it is now suggested the House should abandon, I should like to say one or two words. I fully retain my objection to the retrospective action of this clause; in fact, I should even have been prepared to move that the House insist on its Amendment. But, at the same time, taking into consideration what we have heard as to imperilling the passing of the Bill, and having no desire to see the Bill dropped, I shall not take that course, but I hope His Majesty's Government will accept the proposal of my noble friend Lord Mayo.
I still object to retrospection. I think it is most unfair that a man who has made an improvement with the full knowledge that he was not going to receive any payment for it, and who has enjoyed the advantage which that improvement conferred upon him during his tenure, should be able to come forward and claim compensation. I also support what has fallen from the noble Lord who just sat down as to this not being a case of wealthy landlords and large towns. The people concerned are small struggling people in small towns. They are generally middlemen, and though they will be able under a subsequent clause to recover from the head landlord, a considerable interval may elapse before they are able to do so. They can only recover at the close of their tenure, which may be a much longer one than that of the tenant.
1622
Struggling people of that kind are, therefore, exposed to absolute ruin by these provisions. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill spoke of the different position of town tenancies in Ireland and England, but the difference is by no means material. I would draw attention to the Report of the Select Committee in 1886, that the difference between the respective positions of town tenants in England and in Ireland was not great enough to call for any legislation applying to one which did not apply to the other. I commend this to all noble Lords from England as a warning that they may expect a similar measure extending to this country. On the whole I still retain my objection to the retrospective effect of the clause, and I trust the Government will see their way to accept the proposal of my noble friend Lord Mayo.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the front bench opposite, in replying to my noble friend behind me, seemed to take some exception to the note of warning that if your Lordships were to insist on this Amendment, altogether striking out retrospection, the Bill would be grievously endangered. I am quite certain that my noble friend had no intention of addressing your Lordships opposite in anything like a peremptory tone. On the contrary, we always desire to approach the majority in this House in a tone almost of Oriental deference, not so much on account of the individual merits of noble Lords opposite, great though they are, but on account of the fact that they possess an overpowering majority in this House. It appears that we are following what has become a practice in both Houses in taking these Amendments in globo, but as they are not very numerous I do not know that that course produces any particular inconvenience on this occasion.
I will, if your Lordships will allow me, first deal, out of its order, with the Amendment in Clause 5. The noble and learned Lord recounted what happened at an earlier stage in regard to his Amendment, and he gave an account if it, which I need not say was substantially correct, although he omitted one important fact, that in the kind of

1623
provisional agreement which we gave to the insertion of these words we bore in mind the fact that, after all, it was not our clause, but the clause of the noble Earl; and, therefore, we did not take the same degree of responsibility in joining in its Amendment as we should have done if it had been our own.
LORD ASHBOURNE: It was a step child.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: The term of five years, or three years, whatever it was, suggested by the noble Earl, has it is quite evident, caused considerable dissatisfaction not only in another place but also here. My noble friend Lord Dunraven, who has not been by any means a thick and thin supporter of the Bill, takes strong exception to this proposal on grounds which certainly seem to me to be well founded, namely, that it is important to bear in mind the remarkable difference which exists between three or five years rent of a town holding and three or five years rent of an agricultural holding. The rent bears a very large proportion in the agricultural case to the total interest of the tenant, whereas in the other case the proportion may be, and often is, exceedingly small. I do not know in what form your Lordships may choose to send clown this Clause 5, but I am afraid it is not possible for the Government to say that they could rely upon its being accepted in the form in which your Lordships have left it. Therefore, it really is for noble Lords opposite to consider whether it is worth while, in view of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, to insist upon this Amendment to Clause 5.
Now I come to the really more important point of this question of retrospection. You were warned yesterday by the Duke of Devonshire against talking too much about questions of principle. I think it certainly cannot be denied that the difference which has existed between the two sides of the House in this matter, and also between noble Lords on each side of the House, does rest to a considerable extent on a question of principle. One class of opinion rests entirely upon the sanctity
1624
of contracts and does not seek to inquire not merely whether those contracts were fair, but whether they were made with a real freedom of bargaining on either side. The mere fact, they say, that contracts exist is enough, and they ought to be respected. The other point of view, which I confess to be mine, is that if you are going to say that a contract need not necessarily be observed on the ground that there really was not free bargaining between the two sides, it does not matter whether that bargain is going to be made five years hence or was made a year ago. On that I suppose it will be impossible for us to agree.
But when we come to the facts of this particular case I hope it may be possible to agree. My noble friend behind me who spoke last but one put, I am afraid, a rather sinister interpretation on the remarkable majority in another place which carried retrospection. But how ever that may be, I think we cannot in this House ignore the fact that Members on both sides of the House of Commons not merely voted in favour of it, but supported it by speeches. I repeat what I said before, that it certainly does seem to me that if you leave this in, as I hope you will in some form, the practical effect is not likely to be very great. I do not think that, in relation to past contracts, tenants are likely to receive, if they quit their holdings, large sums under this retrospective clause. It is perfectly true that the safeguards which are applied in the case of future agreements cannot, in the nature of the case, all be applied in the case of past agreements; but it seems to me, bearing in mind the fact that this matter is going to be tried before a purely judicial tribunal, that the Court is therefore far less likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the tenant unless he is able to prove clearly that he was really responsible for the improvements which added to the value of the holding than if the matter were to be settled by arbitration, or on more rough and ready lines.
In the circumstances we think that it would be reasonable to accept the compromise offered by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Mayo, and supported, as I was glad to notice, by Lord Clonbrock,

1625
namely, that whereas no limit of date should beset on compensation obtainable for buildings, yet for all other improvements ten years should be substituted for five in the old sub-section 5. In order to do that, when my noble friend comes to the Amendment to which the Commons disagree he will have to move that the Amendment be disagreed to and then alter the words in the necessary way. I am in hopes that if your Lordships agree to that course being taken the noble Lord will not press the proviso to Clause 5.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The nobly Earl commenced his speech by assuring us that his colleague who had charge of the Bill did not intend to use peremptory language to this House. I do not think any of us ever imputed to him that he used peremptory language, but he did hint that extremely disagreeable things might happen to us if we did not accept these Amendments; and amongst other untoward consequences he suggested that the Bill would be dropped. I think it quite conceivable that some of my noble friends behind me may not be greatly dismayed by that prospect, but we shall no doubt consider this Bill without reference to such considerations as these.
What weighs with me is the fact that, after a very long discusion, we have at any rate very nearly come together. I think the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill was fully justified when he reminded the House that His Majesty's Government had accepted a number of very valuable improvements at the instance of noble Lords on this side. Again, of the four Amendments which have lately been before the House of Commons two have been accepted, so that the two remaining Amendments which we have been discussing are really all that stand between us and a settlement of this troublesome question. May I say one word, in the first place, with regard to the Amendment dealing with the retrospective character of the Bill? I have been greatly impressed by the avidity with which the dictum of the Duke of Devonshire with regard to principles has been accepted by this House. I think it was quoted by the noble Earl for the third time within twenty-four hours. I do not know whether we shall be able to
1626
adopt as our motto the old-fashioned saying that—
"A merciful Providence fashioned us hollow. On purpose that we might our principles swallow."
I hope we shall not come to that; but I think it is true that in Irish legislation we have, and I regret it, to a considerable extent left sound principle behind us. What is however remarkable in the case of this Bill is that for the first time we find this abandonment of principle applied, not to agricultural holdings, but to property in towns. That is no doubt a very serious innovation. Nevertheless I prefer to argue the question as a practical one and without regard to theory. There is one practical argument which I think makes very strongly in favour of those who have desired that the clause should not be made retrospective. It is an argument which I do not think has been noticed to-night. It is this, that in the case of improvements executed after the passing of the Act the landlord has to receive notice of the improvement. He has the opportunity of making it himself, and, in short, has means of protecting himself which obviously are beyond his reach in the case of old improvements executed before the passing of the Act. On the other hand, I think it is true that the Bill as it now stands does to a great extent safeguard the landlord. Let me remind your Lordships, quite briefly, what those safeguards are. In the first place, the tenant can only claim on quitting his holding, and not if he leaves voluntarily. He can only claim if he can show that he has been capriciously discharged by the action of the landlord. In the next case, the landlord can bar the claim altogether by a reasonable offer. Again, it is provided that the landlord has not to pay except for the ascertained addition to the letting value of the holding which results from the improvement. Besides that, the court is held bound to consider the time during which the improvement has been enjoyed, the rent, and any other benefits accruing to the tenant. Finally—and this is a most important reservation—there is no compensation where there has been a contract for valuable consideration, including a building lease. Therefore, in all cases where there are building leases, and I presume that in every case where the

1627
premises have any value or importance there is such a lease, the question of compensation would not arise.
In these circumstances I should have ventured to advise my noble friends not to insist to the full extent on their Amendments, and I am the more disposed to advise that course as I understand the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council is ready to accept the suggestion that there should be a ten year limit beyond which there should be no claim on account of what I may call remote improvements other than buildings. To my mind that is a very important safeguard, because it is no doubt difficult for a landlord to protect himself in the case of improvements executed at a comparatively remote period of time. Therefore, I hope we shall accept the compromise advised by the noble Earl.
One word only as to the other point. I confess that I was a little surprised, and heard with regret, that His Majesty's Government were going to recede from the position they took up the other evening when they agreed to accept three years rent as the maximum of the claim which might be put forward for compensation owing to the loss of goodwill. But that change has been supported by arguments which I think are worth consideration, notably, if I may say so, by the strong argument put forward by my noble friend at the Table (the Earl of Dunraven.) Again, in the case of this clause I look from the particular point we are discussing to the other safeguards which are to be found in the Bill, and which seem to me to be of very great value to the landlord. Let me very briefly mention them. The tenant can only claim this compensation when he quits his holding owing to the arbitrary conduct of the landlord. Then I find in the second subsection a most important limitation under which it is laid down that the clause only operates in the case of business premises; that it includes only yearly tenancies created after the passing of the Act; that a lease of thirty-one years, if granted after the passing of the Act, bars a claim altogether; so that the clause, as I understand it, will not operate either in the case of old leases or in the case of new leases for
1628
more than thirty-one years. The landlord can therefore stop the whole thing by granting his tenant a thirty-one years lease, and an ordinary building lease would no doubt cover him altogether. Putting aside the question of principle, I do not think the owners of property of this class have very much to fear from the Bill as it now stands; and, looking to the fact that we have been met in a not unreasonable spirit and that a number of important Amendments have been accepted at our instance, I should hope the Bill would be allowed to go through without further modification.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I want to say a single word on this particular question. I have listened attentively to this debate, which has been conducted almost entirely by those interested in the conduct of the Bill or in Irish land. I am not myself moved in this matter by the argument of the noble Lord who is responsible for the Bill, either about the size of the majority in another place, the acrimonious debates which may arise, or the possibility of breaches of the peace; I shall not take to myself any responsibility for interfering with the concordat which has been arrived at. All I want to do is to put in one word of caution. I find myself in a strange territory when I am dealing with questions of property and leases in which the tenants make all the improvements. That seems to me to differentiate the case from those contracts with which I am most familiar; and all I rise to say is that I hope, that being the case, that the fact that we are allowing a certain amount of retrospective action here will not be taken as a precedent against this House. It seems bad enough to interfere with the right of adult men to make contracts in the future, but that is as nothing in my mind to not regarding as sacred and binding contracts already made. I hope that, if the House consents to this compromise, those of us who deal with matters on this side of St. George's Channel will not be afterwards told that we are barred from raising the question of principle when we are confronted with requests for the breaking of contracts dealing with our own affairs.
On Question, Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to; several of the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I now move, that this House do not insist on its Amendment leaving out subsection 5 on page 2, lines 20 to 23, but that subsection 5 as proposed by this House be amended by omitting the word "twenty" and inserting the word 'ten."
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with the Amendment.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Crewe).
*LORD BALFOUR OR BURLEIGH: My Lords, I want to say a word or two before, the House actually resolves itself into Committee. The Bill came on for Second Reading last night, or rather in the small hours of the morning, and we had a most interesting speech from the noble Earl the Lord President in regard to it. I deeply regret that that speech was not delivered to a larger audience, and I still more regret that owing to the lateness of the hour it has not been reproduced in the newspapers. After that speech was made it was agreed that no further debate should take place, but that those of us who had anything to say on the principles involved in this Bill should take the opportunity of doing so before the House actually resolved itself into Committee.
As I have said, the speech which the noble Earl made was in itself extremely interesting. It was most moderate in its tone, and as I listened to it I was almost tempted to think that the noble Earl had made out a plausible case for the Bill. He called the institutions which this Bill proposes to set up "school
1630
restaurants."He almost promised us that in every case the authorities would take payment for the meals which are to be supplied, and he told us that this was more likely to be done if public authorities were in charge of these institutions. He told us that, after all, the Bill was only a permissive one, that the provision as to the use of the rates was most carefully guarded, and that only one halfpenny in the £ was to be allowed. We have heard all these promises and all these prophecies before. If I could only believe that in practice they would be carried out, a good deal of my objection to the Bill would be removed.
But it seems to me that in those arguments the noble Earl left out of sight what I regard as really the gravest and the most serious objection to the departure which it is now proposed to make; and although I am not going to move any Motion hostile to the Bill in its application to England, I shall in the course of its passage through Committee move that Scotland be not included in it. Although I feel strongly the dangers involved in the Bill, I do not feel that I know sufficient about the circumstances of England and the English difficulties to make me interfere or put my opinion against that of noble Lords who are more particularly interested in England. I go a long way with much that the noble Earl said last night. I agree with him to the full that there is a great evil in existence, and one which it would be very desirable to remedy. But, my Lords, this proposal, dangerous as I shall endeavour to show to your Lordships it really is in some of its aspects, will not really cure the evils which exist. You do not go to the real roots of the difficulties by any proposal contained in the Bill. They lie much deeper, and that fact is acknowledged by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. In paragraph 4 of their Report the Committee say—
"It is clear that in many cases no fully effective remedy will be found until an improvement takes place in the habits and surroundings of the parent, but the recognition of this does not absolve us from considering very carefully whether, by legislation or otherwise, some measure of amelioration may not be effected."

1631
And in the next paragraph the Committee went on to say—
"Evidence was laid before the Committee to show that the anæmic or otherwise unhealthy appearance of many children present in school is often erroneously attributed to want of food. It is very difficult to trace the source; it is often due to congenital causes, insanitary surroundings, or work after school hours."
Surely that is ample proof that, do what you like under this Bill, give what power is possible under this Bill to the school authorities, you will not get to the real source of the difficulties which undoubtedly exist. You require much more far-reaching and deeper remedies. It seems to me you will incur many dangers. You will discourage the good parents who are struggling hard to fulfil their duties to their children under great difficulties, and you will encourager those who are not discharging their duties because they will put off on to the shoulders of the public the duties which they ought to discharge.
As I understand it, the case under this head for the Bill is that some children go to school insufficiently fed. Inquiry has shown that in many cases that arises from the habits of the parents, who are not really endeavouring to do their duty to their children. If I thought that the meal which you are going to provide would be in addition to that which the child now gets, I would not press this objection so hard; but my fear is that if you give the children what you propose to do and get nothing from the parent for it, as I believe in many cases you will not you will simply encourage the parent who is not doing his duty to trust to what the child will get at school and that he will proceed to leave off what he is now doing for the child. The last stage of those children would then be worse than the present. You will, as I say, discourage the good parents. Those who are really trying to do their duty will feel that those less worthy than themselves are being encouraged to neglect their children, and they will give up the struggle which they have endeavoured to persevere with up to the present time.
I cannot go deeply into the subject, but I think this is one of those measures
1632
which will tend to disintegrate family life still further than is the case at the present time. There may not be much of it in the case of these poor children, but it is a dangerous thing to interfere with what there is. After all, it is the mutual service of parent to child and child to parent which maintains the bond of union which we know as family life, and I think we ought to do all we can to preserve it; and if the circumstances are so bad that it is really hopeless, it would then be better to separate the I child from the parent altogether rather than endeavour to keep up the connection I in this sort of way. I appeal also to the lessons of the Poor Law, and to the difficulties which were encountered in England before 1834. I believe that the benefits under this Bill will not go into the family. They will go to the employer of cheap and the worst class of labour. Those who are trembling upon the brink of being submerged will not reallybe benefited. I venture to think you will encourge the very things which have come to a head in the Metropolitan Unions of Poplar and West Ham, and others which are the subject of inquiry at the present time.
Although the noble Lord thinks he will do things better by bringing in the public authority, it is my fear that that will be an aggravation of the difficulties. I think that voluntary agency is better I fitted for carrying on this work than an authority which can draw on the rates. I shall be able, when I come to the Scottish part of the question, to show your Lordships that in Scotland at any rate, voluntary agency is meeting the difficulty at the present time. There are many who in taking relief from public authorities, would not scruple to misrepresent their case, who would cheat public authorities, but who would scruple to do it in the case of private benevolence; and it is much easier for those who are administering private benevolence to make the inquiries which are necessary than for a public authority.
The noble Earl and the Committee, I think, claim as an argument in favour of the system proposed by the Bill that it is better to administer this sort of relief through the education than the Poor Law authority. I hesitate to

1633
express a definite opinion on how that may be in England; but when I come to deal with the Scottish part of the case I shall be able to show that that is an entire misapprehension so far as Scotland is concerned. It seems to me that a great part of the argument in favour of the suggestion is cut away by the fact that this Bill, following the Report of the Committee, says that nothing that is done under the Bill is to be part of the teachers' work. I agree with that. The teachers are not the proper persons to do this. They are hard enough worked as it is, and it is not right that these meals should be provided in schools. I agree with all that; but, if the teachers are not to take part in it, you surely destroy the strength of the argument that the education authorities—
*The Earl of CREWE: Teachers are not forbidden to take part; they are neither obliged nor forbidden.
*Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am obliged to the noble Earl for the correction. I was drawing arguments rather from the terms of the Report of the Committee. There is a paragraph in the Report which says distinctly that the teachers ought not to be employed; that they are already hard enough worked, in which I agree; and the Committee also say that meals should not be provided in the school rooms on account of obvious difficulties, such as clearing away, the odour of the cooked food, and so forth. With all that I agree; but I point out that, if this is the case, it does cut away, to a large extent, the argument that education authorities are better than the Poor Law authorities for this work.
Then we are told that this Bill is only permissive. I think that is a fallacious argument, because if one local school authority does it, all the others round about must do it, too, in self-defence. The strength of the chain will be its weakest link. It is not true that in one parish this can be done, and in another it need not be done, What is clone in one will react on all the neighbouring parishes. My plea is that we should have further inquiry and more comprehensive dealing with the subject, but I do not move
1634
anything hostile to the whole Bill. I merely place these general observations before the House because I feel strongly that it is a very dangerous and wrong experiment.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY: My Lords, having been privileged to occupy the position of President of the Board of Education in the last Government I shall no doubt be expected to say a few words upon this question, which naturally came very prominently before me when I held that position. I agree to a great extent with what has fallen from my noble friend. I recognise to the full the great difficulties in the way of dealing with this important question. I and my colleagues at the Board of Education came to the conclusion that it did seem a waste of money to spend enormous sums in endeavouring to inculcate into children knowledge, of which from physical incapacity and hunger they were unable to take advantage. That is a problem which opens up a very big field for argument.
When I went into the question I found confronting me various classes of parents whose aims and objects with regard to the feeding of their children were entirely different. There were, in the first place, parents who were absolutely unable to provide food of any sort or kind for their children; then there were parents who were perfectly capable of feeding their children but would not go to the trouble and expense of doing so. I interviewed at the Board of Education before the appointment of the Committee on Physical Deterioration the heads of various schools, and the description they gave led me to the conclusion that many children, though given meals, perhaps, late at night, were yet absolutely starved in the earlier part of the day. As I say, I fully recognise the great difficulties in the matter, and I do not at all blame the Government for bringing in this measure to endeavour to feed the poorest children, so that they should be in a fit physical state to benefit by the education provided for them.
In the debates which have taken place in the other House it appears to me that the opposition to this Bill has come rather from Members of the Party represented

1635
by noble Lords opposite, than from Members of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. I rejoice to see that the Bill will encourage so far as possible voluntary aid, because there have been satisfactory arrangements by voluntary contributions made in the past for giving good food to under-fed children. So long as the voluntary associations and the local authorities work together for the common good I cannot but think that great advantage may result. With regard to Clause 2, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council whether the charge to be made under that clause will be simply the cost of the food or whether it will include a proportion of the cost of the administrative machinery. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh alluded to the fact that payment will be required from parents able to pay. I know how difficult it will be to collect this money, and yet if it is not collected it will be very hard on the ratepayers. It was recommended before the Select Committee that there should be a system of prepayment, and I think that should commend itself to the noble Earl. We have heard it stated that if this Bill becomes law and the provisions under it are carried out to any great extent it will impair parental authority over the children. Personally I do not attach any great credence to that objection. I am afraid there are a great many children at the present time who do not look upon their parents with that amount of respect which they should manifest, and I cannot see that if these meals are provided, as proposed under this Bill, that respect will be lessened. The principle contained in the Bill has been in force, I believe, for some years in European countries, and it was approved of by a Committee of the House of Commons on which a valued friend of mine, Sir Francis Powell, occupied a prominent place. The Royal Commission appointed by my predecessor at the Board of Education went very closely into the subject, and I do not think that were I at the Board of Education at the present moment I could have refrained from taking some steps in the direction proposed. I do not for a moment oppose the Bill, but in the administration of it when it becomes an Act I hope great care will be exercised so as to distinguish
1636
between parents who are able to pay for their children's meals and those who are not, and that where possible prepayment will be insisted upon.
LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, noble Lords opposite said last night that they considered this an extremely important Bill. I think everyone will agree that it is extremely important for the children. One can only feel some surprise that there should be any shadow of opposition to the Bill from any quarter. I feel convinced that your Lordships are not less anxious to fill the half-starved bodies of the children with bread than to fill their half-formed minds with dogma. If you refer to the evidence given before the Commission on Physical Deterioration you will find that it establishes beyond the possibility of doubt that there is physical deterioration now going on in the nation. Nobody can dispute that that is a fact of the utmost significance, and that it is the duty of Parliament to apply a remedy as soon as possible; and nobody can dispute, I think, that this Bill does apply a remedy and one that is urgently needed. Professor Cunningham, in his evidence, said—
"To restore the classes in which this physical inferiority exists all that is needed is to improve the standard of living."
Sir Shirley Murphy, the London County Council's Medical Officer of Health, said that—
"Children have to be fed if they are to do the work required of them."
The noble Marquess opposite referred to what was done in foreign countries. It is perfectly true that in Paris and in Rome the necessity for the children being fed is recognised, and I feel that your Lordships will desire that we in England should not less recognise this necessity than Frenchmen and Italians. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said you would not cure the evil by this Bill. But he admitted the evil. Is not this emphatically a case where half a loaf is better than no bread?
The objections that are brought against this measure can be summed up under three heads: (1) that it diminishes the responsibility of parents; (2) that it will dry up the springs of charity; and (3) that it will throw an extra burden on

1637
the rates. I think that in this matter we have to consider not the parents but the children. The children are the paramount consideration. It may be true—I admit it for the sake of argument—that it will discourage some struggling parents. Yet what does that matter? It is far more important that the children should grow up healthy and strong. In a great many cases the parents are already demoralised owing to having themselves been insufficiently nourished in their youth. Because they suffer from those conditions that is no reason why we should inflict similar conditions on the children. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said it would discourage struggling parents and break the bond of family life. I do not see that those results are likely to follow because children are better fed. On the contrary, experience in this matter shows us that the sense of parental responsibility will be increased rather than decreased. When the parent sees that his child is regarded by the nation as a valuable national asset he himself will think more of his child, for it is a psychological truth that our estimate of the value of anything we possess rises in proportion as other people rate it highly.
We are told that the Bill will dry up charity, but charity does not do all that is required in this matter. We read in the Report of the Committee—
"No voluntary association could cope with the full extent of the evil."
And at this present moment we are told, on authority, that in London there are 122,000 underfed children, or 16 per cent. of the whole, so that, notwithstanding the operations of charity, thousands of children are allowed to starve. Charity is smallest in those districts where the need for it is greatest. Take Lambeth. There are said to be 90 per cent of the children in the schools of Lambeth unable to attend properly to their lessons be cause they are under-fed. That is a case which charity cannot deal with but requires to be supplemented by the State. If it is supplemented by the State I do not believe that charity will be dried up. But even so, charity may bless him that gives, but I question whether it blesses him that takes. The truth is that charity is but the plaster
1638
that only partially conceals the wounds in our social system, and sometimes it aggravates rather than palliates them. We know that the best among the working classes do not like to receive charity. They feel humiliated by being put into a position in which they are obliged to receive charity. These men in the working classes do not ask for charity but for justice. They ask for such voluntary effort as will lead to improvement in the social conditions and do away with the necessity to receive charity on the part of the working classes.
It is said that the cost of this Bill will put an undue burden on the rates; but the cost of the measure is trifling compared with the results that are likely to flow from it. I saw it stated in the House of Commons that if the full ½d. rate was extracted it would only amount to £360,000 for the whole of England. Really when it comes to a question of feeding starving children it seems to me beneath the dignity of Parliament to consider the question of so small a sum. The nation is piling up its armaments by £40,000,000 a year, and yet you object to these meals being given to the children because they will throw this trifling burden on the rates. If £10,000,000 out of the £40,000,000 spent on armaments were spent on improving the physique of the nation it would be one of the best investments this country could make. In Paris, where there is no machinery for recovering the cost of the meals from the parent as there is in this Bill, 10,000,000 meals are given to children every year for £40,000. The noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, startled the House during the debate on the Education Bill by saying—
"The parents are standing at the Bar of this House."
In this case it is the children who are standing at the bar of this House asking to be fed, and I feel convinced your Lordships will not refuse their request.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as one who has taken a humble part in social reform I desire to thank His Majesty's Government for having brought in this Bill. I hope the reception which it has obtained will prevent noble Lords on the Government Benches from ever

1639
saying again, as one noble Lord did the night before last, that there was only one individual on the Conservative Benches who was interested in social reform. The reception which this Bill has received at your Lordships' hands is most gratifying, as it shows an immense advance in public opinion on this question in recent years.
Those who are able to remember the attitude taken by Parliament twenty-five years ago will recognise how impossible it would have been at that time to have brought in any Bill like this with the smallest chance of its being accepted. We are all most thankful to His Majesty's Government for the introduction of this Bill. We feel that it is a question of quite first-class national importance that the children of the country should be properly fed, and we feel that the country cannot maintain its position unless we get in the future generations of strong and stalwart men and women. The only criticism which I wish to make about this Bill is to express regret that the cost has not been wholly thrown on the rates. If you ask for voluntary contributions there will be a certain number of people who will try and place their children on the list of those who are to receive meals and who ought not to do so. If the money was obtained from the rates you would have no hesitation in saying that any parent who could pay but did not do so should be punished. That is the only criticism I have to make, and I hope that even now it will be possible to alter this provision so that the parent who puts his child on the list and can afford to pay shall not get off scot free. With that single criticism I desire to express my most hearty approval of the Bill.
*LORD REAY: My Lords, I rise because I dissent from the opinion expressed by my noble friend on the Cross Benches. There is absolutely nothing which is objectionable in supplying food to children by a voluntary association. I am speaking from personal experience. In the London schools we have had various agencies. Among others we had what was called the London Schools Dinner Association. That body discharged its duty with great discrimination.
1640
I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour that the evil goes much deeper and cannot be cured merely by supplying a meal to the child in the school. The root of the evil is in the homes of the children, and unless and until you find means to increase the sense of parental responsibility you will do more harm than good. The Bill, however, contains the safeguard that provision of food out of the rates will only be authorised where other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food. I have no doubt that the Board of Education will not allow the rates to be used until voluntary effort has been proved to be inadequate. I certainly consider that voluntary effort should be encouraged and not discouraged and that relief from the rates should be given as a last resource. I was very glad to hear from my noble friend the Lord President of the Council that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent teachers from dealing with the question where they are willing to do so. I do not, of course, desire that there should be the slightest compulsion. The teachers are the best judges of the wants of the children. They are aware of those children who require these meals and whose parents cannot afford to pay for the meals.
With regard to the question of the responsibility of the parent, I would point out that in fifteen cookery centres in London 75 per cent. of the money claimed for meals was repaid by the parents. This shows that there is no unwillingness to make the payment. Another alteration has been made in the Bill which I was very pleased to see. I refer to the word "meals." The original idea, I believe, was to give dinners. Now the meal can be given in the morning. That is a very important alteration in the Bill, for undoubtedly the need is often greater in the morning than in the middle of the day. I think I have said enough to show that the Bill, with the limitations proposed in Clause 3 and with the contents of Clause 1, is of such a nature that we need not fear that in England, at all events, it will lead to a decrease of the sense of parental responsibility; and I agree with what fell from the noble Marquess the late President of the Board of Education that there is, as regards England, un-

1641
doubtedly need for the introduction of this Bill.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, during the last few days your Lordships have been expected, in addition to dealing with the education of the country both primary and secondary, to alter materially the law in regard to merchant shipping, workmen's compensation, land tenure, and that relating to trade disputes against the general protests of manufacturers. Yesterday, on almost the last day of the session, and after midnight, we were asked to pass the Second Reading of a Bill permitting, I might say inviting, local authorities to feed the children of the country and to relieve parents from the serious but pleasing duty of doing so.
The question is not quite so simple as Lord Grimthorpe and Lord Meath seem to suppose. This Bill is certainly a great stride in the direction of Socialism. It is a measure to feed not necessitous and starving children but all the children in national schools. The Charity Organisation Society, in an article in their Review for March, 1905, show that even in very poor schools the number of really necessitous children is only about one in 300, and in schools generally not one in 1,000. These cases should, of course, be dealt with. The best plan would I surely be that the cases of children who come insufficiently fed should be reported to the relieving officer and dealt with by the guardians. In an interesting article in the Charity Organisation Review for June,1905, Sir Arthur Clay says—
"If the report of the visitor inquiring on behalf of the Relief Committee should show that the means of the parent are such as to enable him to maintain the child, and that its distress arises from neglect to do so, they should apply for a summons calling upon the parent to answer for this neglect; the justices would then, on being satisfied as to the means of the parent, make an order for the admission of the child to a day industrial school, and determine the weekly amount he should pay, the alternative to payment being imprisonment. The Relief Committee would provide for the supply of meals (if necessary) to the child pending the result of the hearing of the summons. If the Relief Committee, after hearing the report of their visitor, should consider that the parent is not in a position to maintain the child, they would then consider whether an application to the guardians is desirable, and if this should be their conclusion they would inform the parents, and in the event of refusal to make the application, would take steps to prosecute the parent under the law for the protection of children."
1642
The Bill, on the contrary, proposes to feed not only the one necessitous child but the other 999 also. No doubt the Bill is permissive, but I presume the Government consider that some local authorities will adopt it, and in that case probably others will follow. Doubtless we shall be told that the amount is to be recovered, but there will be the same difficulties as arose in the case of fees. Under the Bill local authorities may be running, and I presume many will be running, restaurants all over the country. Take the case of the London County Council, already so much overworked. In the debate on the London Education Bill of 1902, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman spoke of—
"The overworked London County Council,"
adding that—
"The duties are more vast and more trying than those undertaken by any other such body on the face of the earth."
In the same debate Sir Edward Grey said—
"No man could touch the work of education in London and do it properly, and give any attention whatever to the other work falling within the province of the County Council."
MR. Birrell said that—
"It was his belief that the task imposed on the London County Council to superintend the teaching of 750,000 or 800,000 children was a task beyond their power."
Yet they are invited to provide thousands of restaurants for 1,000,000 children—with kitchens, cooks, waiters, and all the innumerable necessaries which will be required. The Bill, like all similar arrangements, will tend to lower wages, but this is not all. The child when this Bill passes, may be taught, have his playground, and be nursed and fed, away from home. Meals are a most important part of home and family life—not merely for the body, but for social life. At them parents and children meet, they come to know and love one another, and the part I most regret in this Bill is the effect it will have in weakening home ties and undermining family life.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I may perhaps be allowed to say one or two words upon this question. I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I admit the force of much that

1643
he has said. He seemed to imply that this question of the feeding of the children is not a very large one, and he stated that it was less important because there were so many other circumstances affecting the health of the children, such as bad housing, the bad atmosphere which they slept, and many other disadvantageous surroundings. Consequently he implied that it was not much use attempting to improve their condition by simply feeding them in the schools. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he had heard many of my arguments before. I may say that I have heard that argument before and it is an old argument that because you cannot do everything to set matters right therefore it is not worth while to do the thing which you are asked to do at any particular time. It is perfectly true that until the great housing problem is really tackled by Parliament and the country no amount of Bills like this will ensure that all children shall come to school in a healthy condition. I do not think, however, that that is any reason for not dealing with this portion of the question while we can. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh seemed to me to fall into another error, if he will forgive me for saying so. He spoke of the loosening of parental responsibility and the possible breaking up of family life. Now, if all children were given food at home, and there was a proposition to take them all away and feed them somewhere else, there would be much in that argument, but the noble Lord seems to ignore the enormous scale upon which this system of feeding children in schools is carried on at the present time. Perhaps he will remember the figures which I gave upon a former occasion. I may say that the number runs into thousands, and that is the existing state of things. Therefore I think we may dismiss the argument that we shall be undermining parental responsibility by a modest measure of this kind. I think it must be admitted that so far as parental responsibility is concerned it does not greatly matter whether the child is fed out of the pockets of charitable people or out of the rates. There may be a certain amount of demoralisation in both cases, and there may be arguments of other kinds against using the rates; but as far as the parent
1644
is concerned, if he can afford to pay, and on that assumption he gets his child fed by charitable people, it seems to me that he is in no sounder position, nor is the fibre of his character likely to be more strengthened, than if the child was fed out of the rates. My noble friend Lord Londonderry spoke, I was glad to hear, of this measure with general approval. He asked me a question about the manner in which the cost of the meals was to be calculated, but as that is an issue which is directly raised by the second Amendment on the Paper, I think I had better postpone dealing with it until we come to that clause. My noble friend the Earl of Meath expressed a desire that all these payments should be made out of the rates if made at all, and that it should be made severely penal for the child of any parent to receive a meal if the parent was in a position to pay. Now, of all things that it is difficult to discover, this question of the ability of the parent to pay is one of the most difficult. The number of circumstances which are brought into play in determining that fact are extremely numerous, as I think we shall find when we come to discuss the clause. It is almost hopeless to attempt to arrive with any degree of certainty at a decision in regard to ability to pay. You may try, and must try, to make the parents pay where you can. That, of course, is exceedingly proper, and you can pursue them by legal process if they are in a position to pay and will not; but to place the whole of this burden upon the rates, making it practically a Poor Law matter, is apparently what the noble Earl means.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I suggested placing this matter under the control of the Board of Education.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: In any case the noble Earl's suggestion seems to me unfortunate on other grounds, because after all there is a large mass of voluntary effort involved which it is our object to encourage and continue, and consequently to give up all hopes of voluntary assistance by placing the charge directly upon the rates would be a very uneconomical thing to do. The noble Lord who has just sat down objects to some important provisions in our Bill, and I may add

1645
that I think he put his case before the House in a very moderate tone. When we come to his Amendments I am hoping that we may be able to persuade him not to press them.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: When this matter came before the County Councils Association for consideration, they very rightly gave their approval to the general principle of the Bill, but they declined to express any opinion upon what the noble Earl has told us are the debateable portions, viz., Clauses 3 and 4. There was no part of the noble Earl's very admirable speech last night which impressed me more than his argument with regard to the educational necessity of providing these means. It is not, as he said, very rightly, so much in many cases the absence of food as the improper feeding of the children, and therefore there is nothing which comes more under the educational system as a matter of necessity than the provision of these meals. I believe we can do a very great deal by teaching the rising generation what is wholesome and nourishing in food, and what is inexpensive, by a system of this kind. It is also extremely proper that the public should be put to the expense of providing facilities for this very beneficial educational work. The difficulty arises, however, when you begin to provide the actual food which is consumed and provided without any charge to those who receive it. As has already been pointed out, it is this particular point which is apt to destroy the voluntary efforts which are now made, and so successfully made, to supply this great want. I am afraid that if every inducement to keep this matter off the rates is not made, voluntary efforts will slacken, and the expense will be thrown to a very large extent upon the community, to the great detriment of the movement. I think that in Clauses 3 and 4 lies the danger of the Bill. I hope when the Amendments of my noble friend behind me come to be considered they will get the support which I am sure they deserve. If every possible means is not taken to prevent those who avail themselves of this advantage not being also obliged to pay for it, in the course of time I am afraid that private charity and benevolence will
1646
become so weak that the entire expense of this very excellent voluntary work will be thrown upon the rates, to the great detriment of the movement and to the great expense of the community.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
(In the Committee).
[Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
LORD AVEBUEYmoved an Amendment limiting the provision of meals to children "who upon inquiry at the child's home shall be found to be in need of food."
He said he would not trouble the Committee with any long observations, as they had already listened to his views upon the Motion to go into the Committee. The object of his Amendment was that instead of feeding the whole of the children, only those who really required it should be fed. They all agreed that it was most important that the poor children who required food should be fed. The difference between them lay, in the first place, in the manner in which this should be done, and whether in order to provide for a small number of children they should undertake the enormous organisation of making preparations to feed all the children in the country. The Charity Organisation Society had taken some trouble to ascertain what proportion of the children really required food, with the result that in a very poor school in a poor locality they found on an average that the number of children who were underfed was about 1 in 300. That was in London, but he was inclined to think that taking the schools of the whole country 1 in 1,000 would be nearer the real proportion. For the needs of this very small minority of the children under this Bill they could arrange an enormous organisation which could not help being a very expensive arrangement. But that was not the most important objection. He could not help feeling that this proposal would have the effect not only of weakening parental responsibility, but also of weakening the ties which united the parents to their children. If his Amendment was accepted the children who really required food would all have it

1647
There would also be another advantage. As the Bill stood no doubt the children would be fed, but if a proper inquiry was made into the conditions of the home, many other matters which undoubtedly led to the unhealthiness of children could also be discovered, and could be dealt with accordingly. As Lord Balfour of Burleigh had said, in a great many of these cases even where it seemed that the children were anæmic, the real fact was that they were suffering from unhealthy conditions in their homes, and not so much from the want of food, as from the fact that their food was badly cooked, badly prepared, and very unwholesome. If they limited the supplying of food to the children who really required it in the manner he suggested, not only would they save a very large expense which this Bill would involve, not only would they avoid any danger of interfering with parental responsibility in the case of a larger number of children, but as regarded the particular children affected they would do much to remedy those other conditions which were so largely the cause of unhealthiness in the children. He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'area,' to insert the words 'who upon inquiry at the child's home shall be found to be in need of food.'"—(Lord Avebury.)
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the house will not accept the noble lord's amendment, although it has been moved in such moderate terms. The Amendment proposes to amend not only this Bill, but also the practice obtaining at the present time in hundreds of schools. At the present time charitable people supply these meals for the children, and they are fed not because anyone has gone to see into their home conditions, but because in the opinion of the teacher they require food. Quite apart from the fact that none of the cost is attempted to be recovered, these funds continue to be supplied by voluntary agency. This Amendment would limit in a singular way the discretion of the people who, at present, apparently are perfectly content to provide these large sums by way of charity, and to trust those
1648
in charge of the schools to see that the food is given to those who stand most in need of it. The noble Lord and the Committee will see that this change is proposed to take place not because the authority supplies the cost of the food, but because it merely supplies a room in which the feeding takes place. The mere fact of the authority under this clause setting aside a room for the purpose would not interfere with these charitable people, but this Amendment would make it only possible to feed a child at school after inquiry had been made into the circumstances of the home of the child. The noble Lord pointed out with perfect truth that in a great many cases it was not so much a question of the shortage of food, as the supplying of an improper kind of food, and food being given at the wrong time, that caused the children to be unhealthy. Those are just the children who might most properly be fed at the school, the cost being afterwards recovered from the parents. As I read this Amendment, that class of child is entirely excluded from the purview of the noble Lord's proposal, and it would only be possible in the case of a child who, after inquiry at its home, was discovered to be actually in a semi-starving condition, that any food could be given. That would narrow in a most unfortunate way the operation of the clause, and I trust the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, or, if he does, I hope the Committee will not accept it. It seems to be the opinion of all those who are most competent to judge that the teachers have an extraordinary knowledge of what is needed. They know the children individually, and they are able to judge, as soon as they have had a little experience of the children, whether the incapacity of a child to absorb its lessons to any useful purpose is due to shortness of food or improper feeding, or to something entirely different. I think we may very safely leave this matter in the hands of the teachers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the immediate object of this Amendment was to bring the Government's proposals within reasonable limits. He did not gather from the speech of the noble Earl last night whether or not the Government, had contemplated that meals

1649
should be afforded only to the children who really required them, or whether they were to be supplied to all children in return for payment. As the Bill stood, all children might have the meals if the intention of the Government was carried out, and the cost, in the case of those who could afford to pay, would be collected from the parents. He took the proposal of the Government on their own showing, and if what he had just stated was the conception of the Government, all he could say was that they were entering upon an enormous organisation from which he would have thought the noble Earl opposite would have shrunk. He did not think the Committee appreciated the difficulties of the enormous organisation which would be required to provide meals for every child. His noble friend Lord Avebury, by his Amendment, proposed to keep it within reasonable bounds by limiting the measure to the children who were actually in need of food, but the Government had refused that proposition. Personally, he held that it was a matter the responsibility for which ought to rest upon the Government. If they really thought they could act successfully as universal food providers, setting up a sort of restaurant for every child in every school, then the responsibility must be upon their shoulders. As his noble friend had already pointed out with such tremendous force, a heavy responsibility would be thrown upon the local education authority. An extract had been quoted from a speech made by the present Minister for Education, showing how heavy were the responsibilities thrown upon the local authorities in London by the Education Act, and the noble Earl now proposed to add to that the further responsibility of feeding every child attending public schools without any investigation as to whether those children required such food or not. He did not propose to ask their Lordships to resist this proposal made by the Government, which was such a remarkable one, but he was none the less very glad that the noble Lord had moved this Amendment.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid the question was not an inquiry into the condition of the home of the child, but whether the child really required to
1650
be fed. He thought that some provision was required to limit the Bill to the actual needs of the case unless the Government absolutely intended that restaurants should be provided at which every child who liked to demand a meal could be supplied with one. That was surely not the idea in the noble Earl's mind, because he had told them that it was for the teacher to consider whether a child did or did not stand in need of a meal.
LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid the noble Lord appeared to think that a casual visit from the local authority would meet the case put forward. Under this Amendment a visit would have to be paid to the child's home. Was it intended to pay that visit with or without notice? How were they going to inquire into the internal circumstances and conditions under which a child lived? It would be extremely difficult to carry out the Amendment which had been proposed by the noble Lord In his opinion the provision contained in sub-section (1)of Clause 2 met the case, because if a parent did not pay for the cost of the meal when he was in a position to do so, a compulsory visit could be made by a representative of the local education authority, such as the noble Lord desired to see made in the first-instance.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I must say word in reply to the alarming prospect which has been held out by the noble Marquis opposite.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: I held out no alarming prospect. It is the Government who hold out the prospect.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: In reply to the noble Lord I was trying to deal with the actual matter with which his Amendment dealt when he spoke of children in need of food. It is no doubt true in theory that if a local authority can get the funds to do it charitably there is nothing to prevent them from offering food to all the children in the schools, and erecting buildings which would be appropriate for the purpose. It is also true that we do not contemplate

1651
that local authorities will endeavour to embark upon these very large feeding schemes. What we think will probably happen is that a very large number of the underfed children will get food. We hope also that a certain number of children of the kind I have described, who are not so much underfed as wrongly fed, may be regularly fed at the schools. There will no doubt always be a certain number of others who for one reason or another, possibly because their mothers go out to work, or happen to be ill, or because they live at an extreme distance from the school, will often have their meal at school. I do not see anything so monstrously objectionable in that. No doubt there will be a large number who desire their children to come home to their meals. If charitable funds are forthcoming the noble Lord will see in Clause 3 that the raising of a rate is contingent upon the consent of the Board of Education, and that consent is renewable every year. It does not follow that because the Board of Education allows this privilege once it will be compelled to allow it again. If, therefore, the Board of Education think undue extravagance is being used, or that the sum which is raised by this half-penny is being extravagantly expended, they will always have it in their power to refuse their permission to raise the rate. If any check is needed the power exercised by the Board of Education will operate as a practical check upon the local authority.
LORD AVEBURYthought his noble friend Lord Grimthorpe appeared to think there would be a great difficulty in finding out whether a child wanted food or not. The President of the Council had just told them that the teachers knew pretty well which children required feeding. He asked the Committee to consider the vista which was opened to them. They knew the enormous expense of keeping up the schools. The children could not have these meals in the schools, and if this Bill was adopted they would have to duplicate the whole of the school buildings throughout the country where the meals were to be given. He did not wish to press the actual words of his Amendments if any reason could be shown
1652
why they were not applicable. If some other better words were suggested he was quite willing to accept them. The real question was were they to give meals only to the children who really required them, or were they to undertake a gigantic system of feeding the whole of the children in this country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he could not admit what the noble Earl had stated. This was not a question merely of subscriptions or of rates. He quite realised that the change which his noble friend proposed, unless it was carefully drafted by Government draughtsmen, might have consequences which would upset the whole framework of the Bill, and he could not take upon himself the responsibility of advising his noble friend to persist in his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD AVEBURYmoved an Amendment providing that the charge should not be less than the entire cost incurred by the local education authority. He wished to know whether these meals were to be self-supporting, or whether the local education authority was to be allowed to supply them at a nominal cost and charge the difference upon the rates. The principle ought to be that the parents of those children that could pay should pay a reasonable amount for the meals. Of course those who could not afford to pay would come in a different category. A great many of the parents of the children at elementary schools were in receipt of good wages and in other respects were fairly well off, and where they were not necessitous children he thought the parents ought to bear the full cost of the meal.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'provided that such amount shall not be less than the entire cost incurred by the local education authority."—(Lord Avebury.)
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I admit that this is a question of some considerable

1653
difficulty. On the face of it it seems reasonable that the entire cost should be paid in all cases where a parent is able to pay. I desire to point out, however, that this is an extremely difficult thing to secure. The noble Marquess Lord Londonderry put a question as to whether the interest on the outlay mentioned in subsection (3) of Clause 1 included the interest upon the furniture, buildings, and apparatus. Speaking generally, I think it is safe to say that it will not. Your Lordships will be aware that there are a number of secondary day schools where a meal is provided at cost price, and they are attended by children of parents of very much the same class as those who attend some elementary schools. When these meals are to be paid for I do not think any consideration of the capital outlay on the buildings comes into the calculation of those who supply the meal. Consequently I think it is clear that it is not reasonable in this case to say that the cost must include the interest upon these different items. There is a further difficulty more or less involved, and it is that it is exceedingly difficult to say what a particular meal really costs. Take for instance the difference between supplying meals in winter and in summer. In the winter perhaps you might have a very large number of children upon the feeding fund, and then the meal can be provided at a cost, say, of one penny. It might happen in the summer time that an identical meal would cost those who provided it double that amount, say 2d., owing to the fact that only about fifteen or twenty children came upon the feeding fund in the summer. Would it be practical on this account to be continually changing the charge of the meals, the food being identical, on the ground that at one time more children took advantage of the meal than at another time? In considering this matter I think it is important to bear in mind the fact that at the present time a large number of children whose parents might pay for them are receiving these meals under the voluntary system. No attempt is made under the voluntary system to get any money back for the meal, and it is quite erroneous to suppose that all the children being fed at the present time have
1654
indigent parents who cannot afford to pay from time to time a 1d. for these meals. If you are going to have a joint fund, partly charitable and partly out of the public funds, those who supply a share of the fund might not even desire that the food should be charged to the parents of the children. There is a still further element in the matter to be considered. You have to look at the question from the point of view of the very poor parents. Some parents if they could do what they liked would not send their children to school at all, but would keep them at home to earn a few pence. That, at present, you forbid the parent to do. We have lately heard a great deal about the rights of parents, but at this stage Parliament interferes and says that the child would be better off at school, although the parent thinks the child would be better occupied earning a few pence instead of learning a number of things which the parent believes will be perfectly useless. You interfere with parental discretion to that extent, and it seems to me reasonable that you should not be absolutely rigorous about these very poor parents returning every fraction of the cost of the meal. I think you will find that if you try to bring this thing to an absolutely rigid mathematical exactitude, it will be found that something of an overcharge will be made, and meals will be provided absolutely at a profit. That would be a most regrettable thing, and I hope the Committee will be content to leave the Bill in the state in which it stands at the present time.
LORD AVEBURYsaid he certainly did not intend to imply by his proposal that the charge should cover the interest on capital. He thought the noble Earl had raised many imaginary difficulties as to the possibility of telling what these meals would cost. As a general rule he thought the cost should be fixed at a price sufficient to cover the cost of the food, and he would like to know whether the noble Earl would agree to adopt words which would carry out that suggestion.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry I cannot meet my noble friend for one of the reasons which I have already explained. Take for instance; the case of the meal which varies in price owing to the time

1655
of the year and the difference in the number of children attending. It seems to the Government only reasonable that the authority should not be compelled to ask for the whole figure, and for that reason I cannot accept the Amendment.
On Question. Amendment negatived.
The Marquess of SALISBURY:called attention to the words of Clause 2 which provided—
"Unless they are satisfied that the parent is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default to pay the amount."
Clearly it was impossible to recover if the parent was unable to pay, and whether it arose from his own default or not appeared to him to make no difference. Unless the noble Earl could explain the point he would move to leave out those words.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This point has not been brought to my notice before, and it is purely a lawyer's point. It seems to me in looking at the words that they express what is intended. I should like the opinion of the Chairman on the point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid in the absence of an explanation he should move that the words be omitted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'by reason of circumstances other than his own default."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Does the noble Marquess think that the words do any harm or is it merely a question of style?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may, "so that the clause would read 'and such amount shall be recovered summarily as a civil debt.'
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 3, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
The Earl of Crewe.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This is a mere drafting point. I should have been delighted to meet the noble Marquess in reference to the words to which he objects, but they have been put in by lawyers and it would be better not to have them struck out by laymen.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Words are frequently put in by laymen in the House of Commons.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHhoped the noble Lord would not press this Amendment. He did not think the word. 'shall' would be appropriate, because it might be ordering the local authority to do an impossibility.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid if the words to which he objected had been struck out there would have been no question of ability to pay. Had he thought it was a mere drafting point he would not have proposed it, but he was afraid that under the cover of the word "may" the local authority might reserve a right not really to enforce the policy of the Government, but to leave unrecovered these debts incurred by parents who were not indigent and fall back upon the rates to make up the deficiency. That was a substantial point, and not a mere difficulty as to drafting. If the noble Earl assured him that it was nothing but a drafting point he would not press his Amendment.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sure that the word "shall" in Clause 2 on page 1 governs the whole clause. The words are "it shall be the duty of the authority."
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The word 'may' applies to the process by which this money may be recovered and renders it possible to recover the money summarily as a civil debt.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to,
Clause 3:—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the local education authority were

1657
entitled to apply to the Board of Education for powers to levy a rate when they had ascertained that funds other that public funds were not available or were insufficient to defray the cost of meals supplied. The clause read—
"And have ascertained that funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food furnished in meals under this Act."
In that event the local education authorities were entitled to apply to the Board of Education for power to levy a rate. He thought there ought to be a further condition in regard to the parent who could not pay. This was almost consequential upon the drafting of Clause 2. He would like to know whether the noble Earl had had the drafting of this clause carefully looked into.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: These clauses have been carefully drafted. There was another Bill on this subject introduced by a private Member in the House of Commons, but all these are Government clauses which we are now considering. There was another Bill which the noble Marquess is thinking of.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought the noble Earl would see the force of his point, which appeared to be consequential upon Clause 2. Clause 2 pretended to provide that where the parent was able to pay no cost should fall upon the local education authority, and that authority under Clause 3 was only entitled to raise a rate under certain conditions. One of the circumstances under which the local authority could not raise a rate was where the parent could pay. Therefore he thought the words he proposed should be inserted as well as the other condition as to no other funds being available.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 17, to insert after the word 'act,' the words 'and that the parent is unable to pay the amount."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid it is not possible to accept this Amendment, because it would almost prevent the raising of a rate in many instances, and apparently it would
1658
not only do this, but it would also prevent the feeding of a child until this fact had been discovered. The rate will only be raised where it is found by the local authority that there are rather more children than can be fed by the voluntary funds which are available. They will then apply to the Board of Education, and they will have to show in the first place that there are a certain number of children who are not able to get the benefits of education owing to lack of food, and they will have to make it clear to the Board of Education that funds other than public funds are not available. They can then ask the Board of Education to allow them to raise such a sum as will supply the deficiency. If it was necessary at any given moment to prove that no child had been gratuitously fed whose parents might conceivably be in a position to pay for the meal it would hamper the operation of the whole clause to such an extent that it might easily prevent the authority from ever being able to raise a rate at all. The local authority must have the funds before they supply the meals, and they cannot recover from the parents until the meals are supplied. Therefore the Amendment might prevent them from supplying meals at all. It does not seem to me a very practical proposal, and although I have not had time to consider it very carefully, I am afraid I cannot accept it.
LORD AVEBURYsaid he did not see how the suggestion of the noble Marquess would prevent the local authority front raising a rate under the conditions laid down.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the local education authority would have to look into each individual case, because they would have to satisfy themselves that a particular child was not fit to be taught. Whilst the authority was making that investigation, surely inquiries might be made whether the parent was unable to pay, and after those conditions had been satisfied the local authority could apply to the Board of Education for power to levy a rate.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not see the object of adding these words. I

1659
think the danger would be that somebody might say the authority had not really tried to recover the money, that the parents might have paid after all, and it would therefore be improper to have a rate raised. I hope that the noble Marquess will not press this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked if the noble Earl would consent to the words he had proposed being inserted now. If it was ascertained by the Report stage that the words ought to come out he would not resist that course being taken.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid we must get this Bill through all its stages to-night, so there is not much time to spare. If the insertion of the words would do anything which the clause does not do already it would be quite another matter. I do not wish to repeat myself, but the normal operation of this transaction is surely governed by the words that the children "are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them." That discovery has to be made in the first instance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he would not press his point. The difficulty they were in illustrated the extreme inconvenience of legislating under this kind of coercion. Although he had been unable to extract any satisfactory reply from the Government why the words he proposed should not be inserted, they would not allow them to be put in because a mistake might be made, and there would be no opportunity of setting it right. They were asked to pass this Bill through all its stages, at this sitting, but if the legislation suffered in consequence it would be entirely the fault of the Government.
THE MARQUESS Of RIPON: I remember an occasion during the last session of Parliament upon which the Aliens Bill introduced by the late Government was before the House, and then the Government did not venture to move even their own drafting Amendments because they were afraid they might lose the Bill if they did.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4:—
LORD AVEBURYmoved an Amendment to leave out the words "and the failure on the part of the parent to pay any amount demanded under this Act in respect of a meal."He thought their Lordships would agree that this was an important matter. Clause 4 provided that—
"The provision of any meal under this Act to a child and the failure on the part of the parent to pay any amount demanded under this Act in respect of a meal shall not deprive the parent of any franchise, right, or privilege, or subject him to any disability,"
As far as the first part was concerned, which merely applied to the provision of any meal, they would all be agreed, but surely the second part which provided that the failure on the part of the parent to pay any amount demanded from him under this Act should not deprive him of his right to the franchise was a far more serious proposal. The idea of the Bill and of the Lord President of the Council was that the parents would generally pay, and therefore the expense would not be very heavy. If, however, they told the parents that whether they paid or not they were not going to be deprived of any right, privilege, or the franchise, that would be a great encouragement not to pay. If they did not pay he did not think they ought to have a voice in reference to the expenditure of rates and taxes to which they did not contribute. He was very anxious to encourage the very honourable feeling which existed so strongly among the people of this country against being dependent upon rates and taxes. The words he proposed to omit appeared to him to destroy the independence of our countrymen, and for these reasons he begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out from the word child,' to the word 'shall,' in line 29."—(Lord Avebury.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsupported the Amendment for the reason

1661
he had previously given. He did not wish, to take away any impediment which stood in the way of persons neglecting to pay for these meals. The effect of parents neglecting to pay would dry up the funds of private charity, and would tend to throw the whole expense upon the rates. The noble Lord opposite had reminded them that this was a question of the child and not of the parent. He was in favour of doing everything he could for the child, but he was ready to put every difficulty in the way of parents shirking their responsibility and throwing the cost of feeding their children upon the rates.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the Committee will think twice before it accepts the Amendment of the noble Lord. This is by no means an isolated proposal. If it had always been the rule for people who came on public funds to be disfranchised your Lordships might very naturally say that we were now establishing a dangerous precedent, but as your Lordships know perfectly well that is by no means the case. Only last year the Government passed the Unemployed Act, and it was carefully provided that those who took advantage of it should not be disfranchised. There are other cases more germane to this measure. The various Medical Relief Acts embody the principle that if a mangets medical or surgical relief for his child he is not to be disfranchised, and even if a child goes into the infirmary it is treated there and fed at the public expense and the parent does not lose his vote. If there is no disqualification in those cases I cannot conceive why there should be in this instance. Going back to the Education Act of 1870, your Lordships will remember that when a parent could not pay the school fees he did not lose his vote. Under the hospitals of the Asylums Board dealing with infectious diseases, people are admitted at the public expense, and those admitted do not lose their votes. Therefore I think it rests with the noble Lord opposite to prove that this extremely small measure which takes a trfling amount from the public funds ought to carry this exceedingly serious disqualification. It is perfectly true that we do not say, although I should have been rather glad if we could have done so, that the child must
1662
be fed although the parent may not wish it. But take the case of a child coming to school obviously underfed, and he or she is asked to have dinner. Perhaps the father and mother may insist upon the child going home, and then nobody knows whether the child gets a meal or not. Suppose the same child comes afterwards to school still obviously under-fed. A case of this sort is certain to be taken up by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the refusal to allow the child to take advantage of the meal would undoubtedly lead to the prosecution of the parent. So that indirectly you positively compel the parent, if the child is obviously underfed, to allow his child to have the meal, and if you put that compulsion, which is the only kind of indirect compulsion that you can venture to put, it certainly seems to me unreasonable to disfranchise a parent if he is unable to pay for the meal.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that this difficulty showed the extreme inconvenience of the course which had been followed by the Government. It was obviously impossible for their Lordships to consider this Bill in the way which it ought to be considered. Its principles were very important and its details were equally important, and yet the Committee had been told that the Bill must be read a third time to-night. The noble Marquess opposite had retorted that the late Government had done the same thing, but surely that did not make the case any better, although the noble Marquess seemed to think he had given a perfect answer. He protested against important measures of this kind being brought up not one or two at a time, but in shoals, during the last three or four weeks, and this House being requested to consider and pass them. He wished to enter his protest against the way the Government had been conducting public business of late.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:—
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH:in moving to leave out Clause 7 (application of the Act to Scotland), said

1663
several noble Lords had protested against the way the Government were dealing with this Bill, but his protest was against the way Scotland had been treated during the whole session. The question whether or not Scotland should be included in the Bill had never been discussed in the House of Commons. The Bill was brought in as a private Member's Bill applying to England, and was sent to a Select Committee. Another Bill referring to Scotland was brought in, and referred to the same Committee. On this Committee of fifteen Members eleven belonged to the Party opposite and four to the Unionist Party. Amongst the whole fifteen there was only one Scottish Member. Four witnesses from Scotland were called before this Committee, and not a single Scottish witness was in favour of applying the Bill to Scotland, and not a single public authority, so far as he knew, had passed a resolution in favour of the Bill. The Bill was only applied to Scotland by one vote—seven to six—the single Scottish Member voting against it. How would England like to have a Bill applied to it by the votes of seven Scotsmen? Such treatment was absolutely without precedent. No public body in Scotland was in favour of the Bill. The Edinburgh and Glasgow School Boards had condemned the Bill. The Chairman of the Edinburgh School Board said that at the last election the question was before the constituents. Twenty-one candidates stood for fifteen places, and nineteen of them condemned the proposals to feed school children out of the rates instead of relying upon voluntary agencies. He told the Committee that he had addressed meeting after meeting attended by the class of people in a position to judge, and his objections to this Bill were received with acclamation. The School Board for Edinburgh had condemned the Bill, and the Glasgow School Board delegated two witnesses to appear before the Select Committee and they also condemned it. Miss Flora Stevenson, who had spent most of her life working as a philanthropist and educationist, stated in a speech that it would be an evil day for Scotland when the legislature put upon school boards the duty of providing meals out
1664
of the public funds for school children. His apprehension was that if the Bill was carried it would dry up the resources of voluntary agencies and they would be thrown back upon the public authority to carry on this work of feeding the children, and he did not think it would then be done so well as it was being done at the present time. Quite recently there had been an educational meeting in Edinburgh at which the toast of "The Houses of Parliament" was proposed by a MR. Leishman who was far from being a supporter of the political faith to which he (Lord Balfour) adhered. He did not think he should offend that gentleman if he said that he was on the verge of belonging to the Socialist party. He was a well known public man in Edinburgh. In his speech he asked "by what marvellous change had MR. Gulland altered his opinion and been a party to conferring on Scotland what Scotland did not want." That was a pretty strong criticism to make, but MR. Gulland's reply to it was equally significant. MR. Gulland said, "He believed that all over Scotland there was a duty owing to these poor children. It was an optional Bill and had MR. Leishman been in the House of Commons he would not have refused to apply that option to Scotland."That was all MR. Gulland could say in answer to the suggestion that although during the time he was a member of the school board he condemned this Bill, he now made no resistance in the House of Commons against its application to Scotland. He would not take up their Lordships' time by further developing this argument. There was one thing which, though it night be applicable to England and might have weight with their Lordships, was certainly inapplicable to Scotland, and that was the part of the Report of the Select Committee which said that the education authorities were better than the poor Law authorities for this purpose. It might be so in England—he expressed no opinion on the point—but it was certainly not so in Scotland, because the school board authorities there had no knowledge of the voluntary schools. They could do nothing for those schools, whereas the Poor Law authorities knew he circumstances of all the people in their district. He honestly believed that they

1665
in Scotland were too sensible to make a sectarian quarrel out of this matter, and he pressed upon their Lordships most strongly from his knowledge of the circumstances that they could not do a thing more likely to cause sectarian difficulties than to require the school boards to decide whether the children in the voluntary schools, almost all of whom belonged either to the Roman Catholic Church or the Scottish Episcopalian Church, were fit subjects to be fed. How was it to be done? The feeding was not to be done in the schools but in other buildings. Were the school boards of Scotland to be asked to put up annexes or additions to the voluntary schools in order that the children might have meals? If they did not do this it would be treating the children in the voluntary schools unfairly. If they did it, it would be a novel departure to allow the public rates to be spent on these buildings. He did not like to say much about his own knowledge or experience, but for eight out of the last eleven years it had been his duty to administer both the educational and Poor Law of Scotland, and he ventured to say there was not a single school board in any of the larger cities or a parish council or county council in any of the country areas of Scotland with whom even now he could not communicate as a personal friend, and he could say from his knowledge that this Bill was neither required nor asked for in Scotland, At any rate, they ought to allow Scotland to make the request before they took up a Private Member's Bill and imposed upon the people of Scotland something they did not require. He regretted the Bill had been hurried through Parliament in this way, and that he could not raise the question in a fuller House, but whatever chance he ran he could not go back to Scotland with the responsibility upon his shoulders of not having done all he could to prevent this improper extension to Scotland of a measure which they did not want.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLsincerely hoped their Lordships would not agree to the omission of the clause. He thought, in spite of the
1666
dictum they heard last night, their Lordships would agree there were certain matters of principle on which a stand must be made, and it seemed to him to be clear that if it was a sound principle to feed hungry school children in England, it must be an equally sound principle to do the same thing in Scotland. [Opposition cries of "No."] The only reason to his mind which could do away with that principle would be if it could be proved there were no hungry children to feed. But he submitted that that had not been proved. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill had alluded to the Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training which sat under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Mansfield, whose death, he was sure, all their Lordships, and especially those who were interested in Scottish affairs, deeply deplored. That Commission in its Report clearly said that there were many children attending Scottish schools who suffered from insufficient nourishment, and it also clearly suggested that some such principle as was embodied in this Bill should be adopted for the purpose of dealing with that question. The Report certainly had a rider added to it in which it said that no charge should thereby be made upon the rates. That was an opinion which no doubt carried great weight, but it was not an opinion which applied more to Scotland than to any other part of the Kingdom, and he again submitted that if this Bill was a sound and good measure to apply to England it must be equally sound to apply to Scotland. The noble Lord who had just sat down naturally spoke with great weight on everything connected with Scottish business, and it was therefore very difficult to combat him when he said that the school boards were not a good authority to deal with the matter, but personally he could not agree to that view. The difficulty of the voluntary schools might be very easily got over. It was not a matter of the schools but of the children to be dealt with. The noble Lord had also said the Bill had been condemned by several local authorities including the School Boards of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It seemed to him the answer to that lay in the words of MR. Gulland that the Bill was permissive, and if the School Boards of Edinburgh and Glasgow did

1667
not wish to adopt it they need not do so.
THE MARQUESS OR LANSDOWNE: I venture to suggest we have had no answer to the extremely strong case put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. There is abundant evidence to show that some legislation of this kind is called for by a great body of public opinion in England, but my noble friend has shown that, far as Scotland is concerned, the evidence is all the other way. I will not go over the ground he has traversed, but it seems to me that my noble friend was able to show convincingly that most of the public bodies of Scotland and the whole of the Scottish witnesses before the Select Committee strongly deprecated this change. I should like to know whether any Scottish Peer opposite will assert that public opinion in Scotland is in favour of the change. I should be very much surprised if he did. A great deal has been said of the inconvenience to which this House is put by having to deal hurriedly with important measures. I feel that very strongly, and it is one of the reasons which disposes me—assuming that we do not reject the Bill altogether—to be extremely careful to avoid any attempt to tamper with its machinery. We have no time to discuss the details of the measure, and therefore the responsibility for those details must rest with His Majesty's Government. But whilst I should hesitate to touch the machinery of the Bill I do not feel the same hesitation in accepting my noble friend's suggestion that its scope should be narrowed by omitting its application to Scotland. It is clear that supposing it should prove to be the case that there really is a demand for such legislation, and in Scotland, there will be plenty of time to produce the evidence which at the present time is wanting to establish that proposition as a preliminary to legislation by which the operation of this Bill, when it has become an Act of Parliament, can be extended to Scotland also. If therefore my noble friend thinks well to press his Amendment I shall vote with him.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I think ought to say one word in reply, although
1668
it will be exceedingly brief. As regards the complaint made from the other side of the House with regard to the date at which this important measure has come before the House, I have only to say that we sincerely regret that it should have appeared so late. I am afraid these things happen under all Governments, and all we can say is that we use and shall use our best efforts to see that so far as possible measures come up in time to be conveniently discussed in your Lordships' House. But in dealing with that point I think that regard ought to be had to something besides the importance of measures, namely, their complexity. It is exceedingly undesirable, no doubt, that a very complicated measure should come before your Lordships' House at a late date. But I think no one can say that this is a complicated Bill. Its provisions may be in the eyes of some noble Lords objectionable, but they are simplicity itself, and I think that to some extent detracts from the weight of the charge which has been brought against us. As regards this particular point, in one respect I confess I find myself with some sympathy with the noble Lord opposite. I do not like seeing social legislation dealing with England and Scotland in one Bill. I think as general rule it is distinctly preferable that they should be dealt with in separate measures; and, of course, I am obliged, also to some extent to admit the difference of circumstances which the noble Lord forcibly brought out as existing between the two countries in this matter. But, at the same time, we have regard to the fact that, as I am informed, the very large majority of Scottish Members of Parliament are in favour, of this measure, even though I believe noble Lords opposite do not always admit that the other House is representative, and we are also disposed to have special regard to the fact that, as my noble friend behind me pointed out, this measure is purely of a permissive character; we are bound therefore to take the sense of the Committee against the Amendment of the noble Lord.
On Question "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships
Consequential Amendment made in the title of the Bill.
Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended), Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Before the House resolves itself into Committee I should like to ask a question about two matters in the Bill. So far as I recollect—and I have not been able to look it up to make quite certain, though I have no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—in the buildings occupied by the National Gallery for Scotland the Scottish Academy has the use of one gallery for three months in the
Divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 28

CONTENTS.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Craven, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Haversham, L.

Ripon. M (L Privy Seal.)

Denman, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

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

Overtoun, L.

Pirrie, L.

Argyll, B.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

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

Tweedmouth, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Weardale, L.

Carrington, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Harrowby, E.

Barrymore, L.

Wellington, D.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Plymouth, E.

Braye, L.

Camden, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Clonbrock, L.

Salisbury, M.

De Mauley, L.

Churchill, V.

Lawrence, L.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V

North, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Dartrey, E.

Addington, L.

Sanderson, L.

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

Avebury, L.

Balfour, L. [Teller.]

year, and one room, or possibly two rooms, all the year round as council room and office. I believe that this arrangement was made originally either by statute or, at any rate, with the consent of Parliament, and I would like to ask whether in this change of the constitution of the Board of Manufactures, which I gather is the main part of this Bill, and the establishment of this new Board of Trustees, any fresh arrangement has been made with the Royal Scottish Academy. The other question—I want to take this also briefly—relates to Clause 6, which, I notice, empowers the Board of Trustees to allocate out of the general fund of the Board of Manufactures such sums as may be prescribed: (a) towards the building and equipment of a School of Art in Edinburgh. As the Royal Scottish Academy is not mentioned in the Bill, I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he could tell me under whose control this School of Art would be. I do not suppose that the new Board of Trustees are going to establish and control a School of Art, but can the noble Lord tell me whether it is a new School of Art under the Royal Scottish Academy? I do not know whether he will be able to answer these questions, but

1671
I should be very much obliged if he could.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: As regards the first question, the building known as the National Gallery, which is now divided between the national collection of pictures and the Royal Scottish Academy, is to be handed over entirely to the national collection of pictures. The building known as the Royal Institution is to be given over to the Royal Scottish Academy. The School of Art, which is at present part of the Royal Institution, will be housed in a new building in the cattle market. Towards the fund of this building a contribution will be made by the Secretary for Scotland out of monies standing to the credit of the Board of Manufactures. I think £10,500 will be devoted to that purpose.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: And it will be under the same control as it is at present?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I understand so, jointly with the town council, who are finding the balance of the money, and I think £30,000 is voted by the Scottish Education Department. The Royal Society, which is at present housed in the Royal Institution, will have new premises provided for it in a building which is to be bought in George Street. I hope I have answered the points raised by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I thank the noble Lord for his information. The only point I am not quite clear about is as to whose control the School of Art is under.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: As I understand—for though I do not speak with authority I have been privy to a good deal of discussion going on—the School of Art will be under a mixed body. It cannot be under the control of the Board of Manufactures, who managed it before, because that body is abolished; but I understand it will be under a mixed body and that arrangements have been arrived at with a general
1672
concurrence in this matter. But as I understand the noble Lord is not going to take the final stage to-night, and if the noble Lord behind me is satisfied to leave it where it is, I am sure the noble Lord and myself will undertake to give him exact information.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly
Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 257.)
NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LAND TENURE BILL (now AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL).
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, and several Amendments agreed to, with Amendments, and several Amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement. The said Amendments and reasons to be printed; and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 258.)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, and several Amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement, the said Amendments and reasons to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow. (No. 259.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.